MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19300, 29 September 1932, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TIMARU, THURSDAY, SEPT. 28. (Before Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M.) Disputed Account. G. J. Rush, electrical contractor, proceeded against Mary S. McArthur, of 14 Elizabeth Street, claiming £6 12s, being the balance alleged to be due for work carried out and material supplied in the wiring of defendant’s house. The contract price was £ls, and extras brought the total up to £22 12s. Defendant tendered £l6. and this was accepted by plaintiff on account. The work was done in 1929. Plaintiff was represented by counsel, but defendant conducted her own case. Plaintiff said that in March, 1929, he had been approached by defendant to do work at her premises in Elizabeth Street. The contract was altered, as defendant had asked for work to be done differently. He had completed the work stated in the contract, and had done other work besides. The sum of £22 12s had been owing, £l6 of which had been paid. The work had been altered so much that the only way to assess the job was to work out the cost of labour and materials, and to base his price on that. Labour included only the time of a man, as he made no charge for his own time. On several occasions when the work had been done according to contract, Mrs McArthur had come along and asked to have certain rooms wired to separate meters. This had entailed undoing the work and rewiring the circuits, which had been charged as extras.

Corroborative evidence was given by Eric G. Collings, a registered wireman, employed by Rush at the time. Witness clearly remembered Mrs McArthur telling him that any extra work would be paid for. An endeavour was made by the Magistrate to work out the cost of the individual items, and he said that the position was unsatisfactory. He had taken the biggest item in the claim, £2 10s, and plaintiff and his assistant, by guesswork merely, had only been able to bring the amount up to £1 12s 7d. This showed how difficult it was for him to get something definite to work on.

John M. Jenkins, accountant, gave evidence for the defence, producing a letter forwarded to him by Mr Long, enclosing a cheque for £l6 in payment of the contract with Mr Rush. Defendant, in evidence, said that she had consulted plaintiff in regard to rearranging the lighting in her home, and she was very definite as to what should be done. The estimate was £ls, and it was definitely understood that there were to be no extras. Defendant disputed the quantity of wire used, and also several extras. After the work had been completed, she had got the borough inspector to view the work, and he had said that a lot of it could have been done from the old circuits. She had been very worried over explosions, and had been told that they had been due to defective wiring. She had been staggered at the small amount of work done for £ls. To counsel: She did not discuss the matter with Collings, who admitted himself that he was still an apprentice at that time. By paying £1 more than the contract, she did not admit that plaintiff was entitled to something. She thought it was a pound wasted, but paid it rather than that there should be any quibbling. The Magistrate said that it was quite impassible for him to give judgment on the evidence before him. The original price stated was accepted by both parties as a contract, but he was not satisfied that all the items specified in the contract were carried out, as there were so many alterations necessary. Plaintiff could not give the details, and there was no possible way for him to, assume that the charges made were reasonable. He had to have sufficient detail to enable him to come to a reasonable decision. Plaintiff was bound to give this information, and had not done so, so would be nonsuited.