SUPREME COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 45, Issue 13794, 26 March 1919, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

DANIELL v. KEBBELL.

A BUILDING DISFUTE

Charles Edward Daniell (C. E. Daniell, Ltd.) proceeded against Reginald William Kebbell to recover £381 10a 4d for work done and material supplied in erecting a building. There was a. coun-t-r-claim for £132 for breach of contract and material supplied.

Mr E. Kennedy, of Wellington, *apfvarcd for plaintiff, and Mr Robinson for defendant.

Continuing his evidence, Archibald H. Daniell, in reply to Mr Robinson, said that, he went out to tho job to obtain a definite estimate. Ho. did-not remember giving Kebbell an estimate ,0± : £450 for the. work. Kebbell was in tie position to expect tho utmost good £aith in him. The cartage account [from Morris was sent to his firm. It was returned to Morris, with instructions that it be forwarded on to Keb.bt'll. Kebbell sent the. account back with the explanation that Daniell and Co. were to pay cartage and freight. Temple consulted him before sending a reply to Kebbell. In this letter the arrangement with A. Daniell was admitted. He was prepared to deny auy ttatement to the effect that there were ,".750 feet less timber in the house than ■charged for. He did not know tho exnet measurement of the timber in the feouse, but 11,300 superficial feet were delivered on tho site. Ho would deny that Kebbell asked him to readjust the account. HLs foreman did not make f .revision for a copper, and the amount for providing it was contained in the. account. By Mr Kennedy: Jle was simply the <!.'■ -j tsldo manager. His Honor stated that he did not understand the witness. The witness h.-wl sailed to make- himself understood during the whole time ho had been in tho box. His Honor said he had been looktag up authorities to ascertain if he i?ould not transfer the ease to somo ether tribunal. Mr Kennedy stated that plaintiff would be most happy to have the matter transferred to arbitration. Mr Robinson said his client at the .vi+sct had suggested the matters in dispute should be settled by arbitration, tut this plaintiff had refused. His Honour stated that almost every item was in dispute. He thought the parties could come to an amicable understanding 1 in less than an hour. Raymond Lee, architect, in tho employ of C. E. Daniell, Ltd., detailed the circumstances connected with the furnishinrr of a finished plan, and the various Alterations and additions to the completed house as not contained in the plan. By Mr Robinson: He was a qualified architect. On some plans the depth of foundation was shown. Walter W. Morris, carrier, Alfrodton, Stated that ho did some carting in connection with Kebbell's job. Kebbell. company with Archie Daniell, approached him as to carting charges. *"iniell left them, and he came to an arrangement with Kebbell to cart the timber at £1 14s per ton. He charged up the account to Kebbell. The only fommunication he received from Daniell -vas notification of the despatch of timber. He sent the account to Keb-t-11, who waited upon him at his houso «.ud'ticked off amounts he was responsible for, such as furniture, etc. Keb-t-11 told him to send the account for rating timber, etc., to Daniell. He r.-'ceived a letter from Daniell and Co. stating that Kebbell was responsible for the account. He later tackled KebI—ll and accused him of shuffling. Keb i -U «aid he- would see that the money v,a« paid, and he shortly afterwards re ■- -vived a cheque from Daniell and Co. •'■r.t the amount. Frederick W. Temple, inside roana-■-■r for C. K. Daniell, Ltd., said his '=irst connection with the Kebbell mat - '."r was over an account sent in by Morris. He considered the account *riould have- <: one to Kebbt ' H - alld n " r-.rned it to Morris with a note to this .-.if.-vt After checking the account .v.-er later with Kebbell. he handed in k cheque for £7,". His firm later sent. :-von" t, cheque to Morris for the am-.-.unt o of his account. Ho was always :.:ider the impression that Kebbell had ■■■■ ide "i definite- arrangement with Morcartage. He advised Kebbell ■that ho had insured the phv.-i: for £"50. defendant never called upon him in re f-rence to the general account. .1 M. Coradine, building contractor, -i Masterton, stated that he had seeu K-bbell's cottage recently in company -.vith others . They had a plan of the '•uilding, the statement of claim, etc. He good look a t the building, and "ftei" scrutinisLn<r some of the. items he was satisfied they were correct. Ilotook. tejmo measurements of the bulk items -irid found them correct. The prices and charges in his opinion were reasonable •">"d r fair, and the house a good and honest job. The building ground was .•-olid and he considered the- foundations onite"equal to all requirements. _ He ;.W no inferior timber, and tho joinery work was completed iv a tradesmanlike manner . By Mr Robinson: He would not use a oliferent foundation on similar ground. .lie did not take any measurements, but he considered the value- of the was close on £600. William Ilenrv Judd, building contractor, stated that he was building a ~>iace about six miles further on than kebbell's in the winter of 1917. The •weather was bad, and he had a difficulty •■a procuring labour. He inspected the -'rr.b in dispute recently. Ilf went through the majority of tho items in tho statement and found they were accurate. The charges in his opinion were •— asonable and the work very satisfao - •rorv The concrete foundations were ni *<rood order and the right kind of Thing for such a building. The value of the place, including everything, was, '"n his opinipn, between £700 and £800. By Mr Robinson: It was not an un-tj-ual thing to furnish accounts similar to that suppbf-d by plaintiff to defendant. . . , David. A. Pickering, sanitary plumber said that ho visited Kebbell's house-t.-n Monday and examined the whole of