RAHOTU WAR MEMORIAL

Taranaki Daily News, 15 September 1923, Page 7

RAHOTU WAR MEMORIAL

WHOSE DESIGN WAS USED? CASE BROUGHT TO COURT. CLAIM AGAINST COMMITTEE. Who designed the Rahotu war memorial archway? This question was debated at the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., when W. F. Short, monumental mason, claimed £2O from the Rahotu War Memorial Committee, alleging that he had submitted a design to the commit<tee, who adopted his proposal but refused to pay him for it. The defendants denied liability, claiming that they had “turned down” Short’s design, but had had another similar one prepared by the same architect as had drawn

Short’s plan. Mr. A. A. Bennett represented the plaintiff and Mr, R. H. Quilliam appeared, Arthur F. Chapman, and Lewis Fiseher, chairman and secretary respectively of the memorial committee. Part of plaintiff’s evidence had been heard prior to the adjournment the previous day. The plaintiff, cross-examined, said he had never charged before for any plans prepared by him and he would not have charged in this case if he had received the work of erecting the memorial areh. When a member of the memorial committee wrote asking him to prepare designs, he took it he was employed by the committee. Unquestionably his action in submitting the designs was in order to secure the job. Mr. Stephenson had not rendered an account for preparing the design, but he could not say whether hp had ever made any reference to a charge. At least witness had not made an inquiry as to whether Stephenson intended to charge him-

“SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.” trying to make this committee pay £2O, for something that cost you nothing, aren’t you, Mr. Short?” “No. nothing of the kind.” Continuing, witness said the Rahotu committee had not asked him to go to Normanby to view the archway there, but most certainly he would charge for the time. “It’s all in the game. You would do the same,” added Witness. “Oh! We’ve got a court to watch our charges.” “Yes. and I’ve got the court watching mine.” “Yes. watching them disappear,” replied Mr. Qirilliam. Re-examined. Short said the first indication he had that the committee intended to use his design was obtained from an outside source about the time the Education Board had passed the design for approval. W. N. Stephenson, architect, said he had prepared a design in June. 1922, on instructions received from Short, who showed witness a photograph of the Normanby arch for guidance- There was, however, considerable variation between the Rahotu and Normanby arches. Later the memorial committee called on him and he drew a larger nlan for them, this plan and the. one drawn for Short being similar, with a difference in dimensions to a certain extent in the width of the arch. -He charged the committee £l5 for the design drawn for them, but he had made no charge to Mr. Short for the smaller nlan. and did not intend to do so. The full charge for preparing plans, specifications, and for giving supervision in the case of building was 61 per cent. Regarding the plan for Short, witness thought a charge of £2O wns rather high considering the expenditure: he thought about £l5 was a fair charge for the plan. THE ARCHITECT’S POSITION.

Tn Mr. Quilliam. his charge of £l5 in--lim’aJ drawing the plan, preparing pA’ifieations, and other incidental details connected with lettering etc. He would have charged Short about £lO or £l2 for the sketch if the latter had ■ecured the job of erecting the arch. The second plan, drawn for the commitUp, W as done without reference to ‘Short’s plan and he did not know if the latter plan was mentioned in the •nterview he had with the committee. At eny rate, he did not consider himself bound down to the smaller design, drawn for Short, in preparing the committee’s plan. The plan drawn for Bhort was witness’s own idea.

Tn re-examination Mr- Bennett quoted a letter from the committee stating, ‘/You’re plan <w what is wanted-—the one you drew for Short.” Witness said he was at. liberty to alter the contour of the arch or alter it in any way he ’iked. Obviomdv he thought the committeo require* l •» •Imilar design to the ■’"—drawn for Short.

veave was given the plaintiff not to 'inse hi? case, pending the calling of ’vo mote witnesses. officials of the Taranaki Education Board, who were enable to attend the court that dav. Z 2-7?* 0 * for defendants raised no obAt this stage Mr. Bennett asked leave to amend He statement of claim on * quantum meruit if necessary. LAW, NOT SENTIMENT.

Tn Opening for the defence, Mr. OuilF n m said he had no wish to misconstrue ith" law for the sake of sentiment. The .e’-hn wag entirely without merit, a f A t that could not lightly be regarded. After authorising the negotiations leadin’’ up to the erection of the memorial, fc •nsel said three tenders were received the work, the prices being £lBl, *i’2o and £287. an extraordinary difference, and the committee naturally .accepted the lowest tender, Short’s price being £220. Before the plaintiff could be held to be entitled to the claim, there would first have to be shown that a contract could be read into the negotiations, but it was submitted that the correspondence gave no indication of employment. The position was that of a man, piqued at big tender not being accepted in competition with others, who had looked round to see bow he could charge the committee, and then had lighted upon the design. Arthur Fredrick Chapman, farmer, at Rahotu, and chairman of the war memorial committee, said the committee had about £6 in the bank for incidental repairs that might be needed. There had been a memorial committee earlier than the present one, which was set up in April of last year. After various proposals had been put forward as to the form the memorial should take, at a public meeting it was decided to erect an archway similar to the one at Normanby. The committee had “turned down” Short’s plans and had instructed Stephenson to draw a plan for the committee on which tenders could be invited. The committee maintained tbatt they had not used Short’s plan in any ehape or form and, when

Short rendered an account, the action ’•was-regarded- as bluff. Doling a rather heated passage between counsel as to the relianey of certain evidence, the magistrate asked that matters be confined to the issues in dispute. As it was the case was being dragged on indefinitely, whereas it should -have 'been finished in an hour. CONSIDERED A “TRY-ON.” Lewis F. J. Fischer, secretary of the war memorial committee, said he returned Short some drawings of obelisks in May, stating that the committee intended to see the Normanby gates. On June 14 witness consulted Stephenson with reference to drawing a design and specifications for a cobblestone archway. When seeking the approval of the Education Board of the design, witness took along the smaller plan to give the board a general idea of the scheme as Stephenson had only that day been instructed to draw a design for the committee. The committee had not approved the small plan and the only use made of it was to show it to the Education Board- Later witness met Short and told him Stephenson was drawing a plan for the committee. »Short replied, “I’m not tendering for the job. I don’t like the way you fellows have been acting.” Short’s account for the design was not taken seriously by the committee, as witness had given Short to understand in June that the matter was in the hands of the architect. He had no authority to promise Short the job and did no-t do so. To Mr. Bennett: No notice had been taken of Short’s accounts till repudiation was made in March, 1923. “I accept the 'blame for no notice being taken of Short’s account,” said Walter R. Wright, farmer of Rahotu, in evidence. He did not take the account seriously, considering it a “try-on.” Herbert F. Annis and Garnett Prosser, members of the memorial committee, gave corroborative- evidenceThis concluded the defence, the case being adjourned till September 26 for the completion of evidence by two witnesses for the plaintiff.