DEFENCE HEARD IN SUPREME COURT CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19201, 15 October 1930, Page 7

DEFENCE HEARD IN SUPREME COURT CASE.

BUILDER CLAIMS FOR CONSTRUCTING HOUSE,

The defence was heard to-day in the Supreme Court action between Lynwood Hollings, a builder, of 248, Lyttelton Street, and Joseph Henry Dack, of 31, Torrens Road, and his wife, Madeline Constance Dack, in which Hollings claimed £l3B as the remainder of the amount alleged to be due for the construction of a house in Wright's Road, Mr Justice Adams presided. Mr Thomas appeared for plaintiff and Mr W iddowson for defendant. Mr Widdowson applied for a non-suit on the ground that the second contract on which the house was built had not been proved. He submitted that the evidence given by the bank officials was not proof that the contract had been Signed. His Honor said that he was not, at that stage, prepared to believe that the signature on the contract was forged. The__ non-suit point was reserved at Mr Widdowson’s request. In opening the defence, Mr Widdowson said that the defendants would say that they knew nothing about the second contract dated March 5, until they were served with the writ. There was no inducement to the Dacks to alter the first contract, which was dated February 16, 1920. The house was built and the Dacks took possession rather forcibly in November last. The house was not properly finished until May of this year, after it had been inspected by adjustors. Mrs Madeline Constance Dack, one of the defendants, said that Hollings had submitted one plan and one specification to her, and had agreed to take over her property in Torrens Road as part payment. Work was commenced on the house on February 18, 1929. She " e y er enter£ d into a contract on March 5. “I Did Not Sign It.** Realising the seriousness of your answer, do you still say you did not sign that contract?” asked Mr Widdowson. “ No, I did not sign that. It is not signature,” answered witness. Under cross-examination by Mr Thomas, Mrs Dack said that she just remembered the .acts concerning an agreement regarding the mortgage yesterday morning before coming into Court. Although she had declared that the signature on the agreement to mortgage was a forgery as late as last Monday, that was due to confusion in her mind as to the various documents. Witness, later, in reply to Mr Thomas, said that, after yesterday’s proceedings, she went to the Butler Timber Company to find out when Hollings ordereel timber. She was told something about March 18, but did not find that any timber had been delivered by that firm during February.

Joseph Henry Dack gave evidence corroborating that of his wife. Decision was reserved.