CLAIM ON SUB-CONTRACT.

Waikato Times, Volume 98, Issue 15320, 22 August 1923, Page 5

CLAIM ON SUB-CONTRACT.

ERECTION OF FRANKTON BUILDING

A claim under the Wages Protection and Contractors’ Liens’ Act was brought before Mr 11. A. Young, S.M., at Hamilton yesteyday, in which plaintiff was Joseph S. Anchor, plumber, of Frankton (Mr F. A. de la Mare), and defendant Arthur George Sandford (storekeeper), of Frankton. The amount of the claim was £134 5s 2d for work done on a building owned by defendant at Frankton, plaintiff being a sub-contractor for the plumbing work, the original contractor being Peter Warren.

In opening his case Mr de la Mare said the case was not one in which there had been any hardship, but the employer in the case had the money in hand, and had not paid one side or the other. The original contract was for a building at Frankton, to cost £2789. Peter Warren was the contractor, and the payments to him amounted to £2OOO. Sandford guaranteed Warren at the bank for £2OO, and it was contended that part of that money might have been held back for the creditors. However, they had a letter from Sandford’s solicitor, in which it was stated that there was a sum of £502 in hand. Altogether notices of liens had been presented aggregating £IOOO. It transpired, however, that some of these notices were obviously not in order, while others were doubtful, and further ones were only part claims. In order to clear the matter up, and to get a settlement of the claims, Sandford, through his solicitors, called a meeting by letter, and a settlement was suggested in which £528 was offered to the lienors if they could agree amongst themselves as to the distribution.. Eventually after further negotiations defendant went to each of the lienors and made an arrangement with them. He paid different ones certain sums, totalling £317 17s. The Metal Stores, who had a fairly substantial claim, received nothing, and Anchor had got nothing. Apparently defendant had in hand a sufficient sum to pay the outstanding accounts, but it looked as though he was not prepared to do this and was going to make something out of it if he could. Mr P. H. Watts, for defendant, doubled whether that court was competent to deal with tile case as it was first necessary, before the court could decide what was owing by Sandford tc Anchor, to determine what was owing by Sandford to Warren. Anchor’s claim could only be for such sums as were payable by Sandford to Warren, and this entailed an amount outside ’the jurisdiction of the Court. His Worship could, of course, determine whether Anchor had established his lien or not, hut counsel held that Anchor’s lien was defective. Plaintiff, Joseph Spencer Anchor, said his sub-contract was for £l2B, but he did some extra work, bringing his claim to £134 5s 2d. When his ■lien was put in there was certain work uncompleted, which lie knew about. He had seen Sandford on two occasions in reference to a settlement, and Sandford declared that he did not want to pay the money twice. He offered plaintiff, however, £9O on one occasion, and £IOO on the second. Arthur George Sandford, defendant, was called by plaintiff to prove the contract. The contract, he said, was for £2789, and he paid to Warren, the contractor, £2OOO. John Craster Blechynden, architect, Hamilton, said that in company with Anchor and Sandford lie inspected the building in question. The roof In parts was leaking, while the gauze tops on certain pipes were unsatisfactory. Anchor promised to have the gauze fitted on, but refused to accept responsibility for Hie leaks, stating that they were caused through the iron being caved in as a result of the men installing the wire walking about on the roof as they invariably did. According lo the letter of the contract tlie plumber had not completely finished his work, but as lo whether he had carried it out to Hie spirit of the tiling witness was not prepared to say. Judgment was reserved.