PROPRIETOR OF NEW SKATING RINK SUED

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19116, 8 July 1930, Page 9

PROPRIETOR OF NEW SKATING RINK SUED

DISPUTES A CLAIM FOR COST OF BITUMEN FLOOR.

Recently a skating rink was opened by Mr R. Stillwell on Ferry Road, near Fitzgerald Avenue. The present floor is of wood, but at first it was intended to have one of bitumen, a contractor having laid down such a surface. Claiming that the result of the bitumen work was not satisfactory, Mr Stillwell withheld payment of some of the contract price and the contractor claimed the amount in the Civil Court this morning before Mr H. A. Young, S.M. A counter-claim was made for money paid on account. Gordon Cook, of Christchurch, a contractor, trading as New Zealand Bitumen Road Company (Mr Twyneham) claimed from R. Stillwell, amusement caterer (Mr Sargent, with him Mr Russell), the sum of £146 19s Id, being the balance alleged owing for work done in April in laying down a bitumen floor at Ferry Road for use as a skating rink.

Defendant counter-claimed for £ICO, an amount paid to plaintiff on May 9. alleging that the work had not been done in a workmanlike manner or by the date agreed upon, and that the material used was unsuitable and improperly applied, so that it did not give a smooth skating surface. The counter-claim set forth that by reason of a written notice to plaintiff defendant rescinded the agreement made. Mr Twyneham said that the basis of the contract was to lay down a carpet of bitumen over a concrete floor, the price being 5s 5d a square yard. Plaintiff guaranteed a smooth skating surface and work done in a proper manner. The floor as agreed upon was laid down. Mr Stillwell was satisfied with the work, but a harder surface was put down for £SO extra, £IOO being paid on account. The work was completed at 4 p.m. one afternoon and defendant was warned to leave the floor for three days, but an hour or two later skaters were put on it. It was impossible for the surface to take people and not show signs of it. Before giving plaintiff another chance defendant put in a gang of men the following morning to lay down a wooden floor. Experts had been sent round who considered that the surface would have been an excellent one if the mixture had been allowed to harden. Defendant had been given credit for £IOO, but there was th® price agreed upon for 721 square yards and the additional £SO.

Leslie James Roache, managing foreman for plaintiff, gave evidence of the agreement entered into. Mr Stillwell had said that he was satisfied with the work and had asked when the floor would be ready. Witness said a week or ten days. Defendant gave a cheque for £IOO to witness and agreed to pay the balance when the rink was opened. When Mr Stillwell asked for a harder surface in a shorter space of time he was advised to leave the floor as it was. Defendant, however, agreed to pay £SO for a harder surface and the work was done with harder bitumen. Mr Stillwell put skaters on the floor when witness considered it was madness to do so. (Proceeding.)