BHHpRK

Waikato Times, Volume 118, Issue 19762, 18 December 1935, Page 2

BHHpRK

TO PLANT. HUNTLY BUTCHER SUED. ENGINEERING FIRM’S CLAIM. A direct conflict of evidence was placed before Mr S. L. Paterson, o-M., in the Magistrate’s Court, Hamilton, yesterday afternoon, when the balance of £l2 18s 6d for work allegedly performed on machinery in a factory at Huntly was heard. Plaintiffs were James J. Niven and Co., engineers, of Hamilton (Mr A. E. Webb), and defendant Richard Nash, butcher, of Huntly (Mr N. S. Johnson), Frederick James Abraham, manager of the plaintiff company, stated that he inspected the job, and after preparing the estimate in Hamilton rang Nash senior and told him that the price would be about £35. Defendant said he would see his son, and a few days later witness’s costing clerk took a message telling the Arm to proceed with the work. The completed job was different from the work quoted for. It was to have consisted of the erection of a line shaft and a counter shaft to connect steam with an engine.. Contrary to his promise, defendant did not have the boiler prepared when the plaintiffs’ employees arrived on the job, and a great deal of time was lost in raising the steam. Considerable work In addition to what was specified in the estimate was necessary, and would have been assessed at £lO. In making the price £37 10s plaintiffs had charged only £2 10s over the estimate. Defendant, who had paid £25 and a further £2 to the Arm, claimed that plaintiffs had been quoted £25 for the job. Cross-examined by Mr Johnson, witness denied that he had quoted a price to the defendant in his butcher’s shop at Huntly. Costing Clerk’s Evidence. Robert Alfred Paterson, costing clerk for the plaintiff company, stated that he had received a call from defendant’s son, who Instructed the Arm to go on with the job, but that the pi’ice was excessive. Nash had mentioned no-price to him and witness had no idea of the estimate suggested. James Richard Nash, son of the defendant, claimed that in instructing Niven and Company to proceed with the job he had speciAed the estimate of £25. In evidence defendant said that, following an inspection of the plant, the plaintiffs’ manager had called at witness's shop and gave a price of £25. Witness would not have had the work carried out at £35. He denied that /Abraham had telephoned him on the day following his inspection, and claimed that the plaintiffs’ employees had been required to perform no extra work. Corroborative evidence was given by David James McNea, an employee of defendant, who stated that he had heard the manager quote £25 to his employer. Witness was not aware that any argument concerning the price had taken place in the shop. Engineer’s Evidence. A consulting engineer of Auckland, Harold Milson Warner, said that he had checked up on details furnished by the plaintiffs, and with the exception of tlie belling, the brackets and the labour charges, the prices were reasonable, although certain discounts might have been allowed, amounting to 15s or 10s. The whole job should have been done by a man and an apprentice within two and a half days. Reviewing tire submissions, the magistrate said there was a direct conAict of evidence as to what happened when the price was quoted, and he was bound to accept the evidence of the plaintiffs’ manager. The defendant could give no coherent account of what took place in the shop. It had been alleged that the price charged had been unreasonable, but the expert witness had not seen the job before the work was commenced, and was not in the position to visualise the work that was necessary. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs for tlie full amount, with costs £1 10s and witnesses’ expenses £1 2s Gd.