SUPREME COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 45, Issue 13794, 26 March 1919, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

DANTELIi V. K.EBBELL.

(Continued from Pago 6.}.

liogihald William Kebboll, the defondant, continued his evidence this morning. To Air Kennedy: Witness first complained about the defective workmanship on an occasion when Mr A. Daniell called to see about a pipe that had spoxied the beaver board. Witness sent in a letter on September 28th, 1917, enclosing a cheque for £350, but did not complain of defective work in the letter. Tho defective pipo was a small matter at first, but it grew. At that date witness had made no complaint in regard to tho timber, plumbing nor foundations. Witness first consulted his solicitor a few months .ago. Ho placed tho case in his hands generally, and told him that a definite contract prico had been fixed. Mr Kobinson probably had legal reasons for not referring to the contract prico in letters he wrote to Daniell. According to his solicitor's lotters, it was at that time simply a matter of a fair price, as witness wanted to settle tho matter. They offered £75 in addition to the £425 paid to settle tho matter. When tho first defence was filed there •was no mention of defective work.

Mr Kennedy: Is it not a fact, Mr Kobbell, that tho question of defective work never crossed your mind till those proceedings were commenced?—-No, I Knew about many of the faults, but others have been pointed out to me.

Replying to Mr Kennedy, witness admitted that he had paid Daniell a cheque for £75j and had received a receipt (produced), which stated that the amount was on account of cartage. Witness said he had not taken any notice of what was put on the receipt by Temple. His £75 was'not intended to pay Morris for cartage, but fb pay Danioll.

c - ALr Kennedy: Then how is it that the amount charged on your account for cartage is almost exactly £75, and you paid £75.'—That is'very-easily explained. Mr Temple suggested that as I had already paid £.'l5O I should pay the additional £75 to bring the total up to the £-125.

Mr Kennedy:-When you interviewed Byford Bros., what was their estimate.' —Byford-'s estimate was £450 apart from cartage. ' .-.. .

Did it not occur to you to get the definite price, aud time for completion, in-writing from Daniell ?-—No; 'I thought Daniell "a word was good enough for me. I left everything to Daniell's, and trusted them.

You thought they were honourable enough to do tho fair thing by you?—l thought they would. Then why did you go to Byford for an estimate.' —I had been away from New Zealand for two years, and had lost touch with.prices; as..soon as I knew Daniell Vs price was fair I was satisfied. Did Daniell agree to finish tho house, in six weeks? —-Mr Archie Daniell told me tho place would bo completed in six weeks from the time of starting. I told Daniell I was getting married, and wanted to get into the house as soon as possible after returning from my honeymoon. Do you suggest that the shed outside was extra to the contract? —Yes, I got a rough estimate for that from Mr Daniell. You did not get an estimate for the other extras? —No. Mr Robinson here read letters which he had sont to Mr Daniell upon Kebbell 's instructions. One letter suggested an outside opinion being obtained of the work, upon which Kebbell would pay. Another letter offered to pay an extra £7. r >, over the £420, to settle the matter. Herbert Byford, builder, said that Kebbell consulted him in April, 1917, about a cottage. Kebbel showed him a .-ketch and asked for a price. Witness tool; a copy of tin- sketch Kebbell had, and prepared an estimate. Witness's price was £l. r >o without cartage. At the bottom of the sketch and estimate in

witness's book was a note, "Daniell £445 with cartage.'" This note was made because Kebb.'ll said,""l've got a price, from Daniell —£445 with cartage.'' Witness put the note at the bottom of his estimate, as a check. He said to Kebbell, "Well, Daniell is the lowest; gi\e it. to him." If witness had been given the job he would have carried it through for £450. To Mr Kennedy: On the sketch .shown to witness by Kebbell the double chimney erected by Daniell and other minor matters were not allowed for. No septic tank was stipulated, but a sum of £16 was allowed for drainage. The erection of tho windmill was not provided for. The sketch did not allow for all the cupboards which Daniell hail put in, : nor was gas provided for. Walter Hodges, builder, said that, in conjunction with Messrs E. J. Rose and .1. T. Watson, areh.ito.-its, he made an estimate of the quantities in Kebbell\s house. They made tho value of everything at £022 10s. The foundations had been examined, and they found in four places tho concrete was not more than two inches under the surface. Witness would not put in a foundation less than six inches under the surface. One suggestion to remedy this defect was to place a -oiK-retc footpath all around the house, or to undermine tho foundation and continue it down. This would cost £15. The gully-trap had no right to be where it was. This would cost £5 to put right. With'respect to the beaver board in the bathroom, witness thought, this was not a proper material with which to line a bathroom. Beaver board was not a proper material for putting under the sink. Witness allowed £15 for remedying this. Plugging the ends of tho rustic weatherboards near tho corners should also have been done. The pantry was separated from the unlined washhousc with one thickness of beaver board, which was not a proper material for lining a washhouse. In a first-class job tho washhouso should have been lined. This would cost £15. For totara joists, etc., that should havo been put in where other timbers were used, witness estimated £30 should be allowed. Allowing tho deductions mention-

od, the cost of the building would be reduced to £527. This estimate was made jointly by witness and Messrs Rose and Watson. At the timo they made the estimate thoy had not seen Daniell'a es- ; timate. j PJrnest John Rose, farmer, a retired ' architect, said his estim « -■ " ' -'"' houso was £622 10s. Witness had gono into calculations of the A•■ -• a v a house, and his figure-" " IV" n Daniell's considerably. Daniell'*» fig-* ures showed that 12,130 feet of timber had been used in the job, whereas witness could only find 9768 feet This ' was a difference of 2362 feet of timber. With regard to cement, witness calcu-'a<-ed that 47 bass had been used, whereas plaintiff claimed for 84 bags. This. sr""ved a discrer-f"e->- <■>' "" biir? of cement. Witness also enumerated other discrepancies in reply to counsel. Replying to Mr Kennedy, witness said that allowance had been made for wa-.tage, as was usually don" by architects on jobs. It was not to allow

wastage on the studs and joists, as the rut. pieces could bo used. John Thomas Watson, architect, who had made tho joint estimate with Rose of the quantities of timber, comout, etc., used in Kebbell'» house, corroborated the figures of the previous witness. Witness also considered that beaver board should not have been used where it was, aud corroborated the opinions expressed by Hodges. . To Mr Kennedy: The foundations had stood'all right, but witness considered it was necessary to go down several inches to get a uniform solidity for a foundation. Mr Robinson, in addressing tho court, pointed out that the architects had not provided in-their estimated deductions for loss caused by delay in completing tho house, for geenral damages by reason of tho house not being first-class, and also for loss which must be occasioned during the carrying out of tho alterations now deemed necessary. Mr Kennedy said that his clients did not want to claim for any item to which they were not justly entitled. He asked His Honour to deduct from the statement of claim £9 ss-for the range wrongly charged, and also £5 for the defective gully-trap. His Honour said he would take time to consider his decision. 0