A DISPUTED CONTRACT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2380, 22 December 1908, Page 5

A DISPUTED CONTRACT.

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon a' case was heard in which Margaret Andrews, Margaret, Dorcas do, Elizabeth do and Edith do, claimed £26 from Edward Thomas Harries, butcher, being portion of the cost of tiling a dado -round the interior of the shop occupied by him, and also the cost of a door.

Mr -Stock appeared for the jilaintiffs and Mr F. W. Nolan for the defendant.

Mr Stock intimated that £3 10s was admitted regarding the price of 'the door instead of £7 as claimed for. This reduced the claim to £22 10s. E. G. Matthews, solicitor, said that lie acted as agent for the plaintiffs and defendant, agreed to take one of the shops erected by Mr IT. D. Andrews of Christchurch for them in Gladstone Road. Defendant offered to pay a third of the cost of certain alterations in the shop, tiling a dado, the estimated cost of the- work being £34. He sent this offer to his principals, who replied stating that the work could not proceed unless defendant -paid £25 towards the cost of the work, but that they would go on if he paid £2O. Defendant then said that he would -give £l7 10s, but if Mr Andrews was not prepared to take that he would give £2O. To Mr Nolan : He was quite certain defendant said he would go to £2O. He did not say he would give £ls and would not let the matter drop for £1 or so. When tlie account was sent in defendant objected to it and denied having offered £2O.

Francis John Wilson, architect, in answer to Mr. Nolan, said that defendant had said to him that he did not mind going to £ls.

Mr Nolan outlined the case for the defendant and called —

Edwnrd Thomas Harries, said that •ho agreed to take \\, shop from Air H. 1). Andrews, who was acting as agent for the plaintiffs. He told All* Matthews that, he would stand a third of the cost up to £ls of ti'ing. Mr Matthews rsiw him several timessubsequently, but he (witness) would not agree to pay any -more and was quite positive that he had not offered £2O. He did say that if his share was a little more he would not mind another pound or so. To Mr Stock : There was no mention of £l7 10s at any conversation with Mr /Matthews, lie did not suggest having tiles for the shop, and Mr Matthews at one interview consented to take £ls for his share of the work. Thomas Tlalbert, butcher's .assistant, gave evidence of hearing three conversations between Mr Matthews and defendant. At each of these conversations defendant said tli.it lie would only go up to £ls for his share of the work. His Worship said that he was inclined to think that as the time was long ago defendant had forgotten Avlint really had happened. The evidence of Mr Matthews was particularly clear and lie thought plaintiffs must succeed. Judgment would be for plaintiffs for £22 10s with costs £4 19s.