Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

A BUILDER'S CLAIM
ALLEGED NEGLECT TO SUPPLY
MATERIALS.
In the Court of Requests yesterday,
before the Commissioner (Mr. E. W.
Turner) W, A. Mays, contractor, of
Hobart, proceeded against W. II. S.
Warn, of Regent Street, for the recovery
of £12, money alleged to be owing for
the performance of certain work in con-»
nection with the erection of ii brick resi-
dence in Regent Street. The defendant
denied that the plaintiff performed the
greater portion ol the work stipulated In
the contract and also denied that ho
(defendant) neglected to supply tho
necessary materials. He contended that
plaintiff was not always ready and will-
ing to complete the work. Mr. C. S.
Page appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
W. J. T. Stops represented the defen-
dant.
The plaintiff said that his tender of
£20 to do certain building work for de- '
fondant was accepted, détendant to sup-
ply the materials. Witness employed
n carpenter to do the work, hut as tho
materials required to do the job wero
not forthcoming, ho, and the other car-
penter, were kept hanging about for
nearly a fortnight. Witness paid the
carpenter £7 3s. In wages, and as they
could not« get on with the work he left.
As ho hud paid the wages of two car-
penters he told defendant he could not v
accept the offer, but would tako^£12.
In answer to Mr. Stops, witness said
(hat defendant did not como to him
afterwards and a*k him to complete the
job.
Percy Mason and Edward Fisher, car-
penter, gave corroborative evidence.
In answer to Mr. Stops, [i'isher said
plaintiff asked him about the price he
would take to complete the job, but ho
said he would have nothing to do with
it
The defendant said he told plaintiff to>
Jet him know when he wanted materials;
Witness ordered Iron for the roofing at
the request of plaintiff on a Monday, but >
it did not arrive until the next Thurs-
day. Plaintiff stayed away from tjhe
job until the following Monday week'
and witness went to see him on two or
three occasions In order to ask him ito
get on with the work. When plaintiff
returned to the Job he did the iron roof-
ing and the ridging, but left other things
undone. He did not complain that
there were no materials there. When
plaintiff next came to the job he did not
go on with the work, saying that there
were no door jambs there. Eventually
witness was obliged to engage another
(contractor, to whom he had to pay £12 ,
to finish the work. Apart from that .
amount, he had done some of the work
himself with the aid of a labourer.'
Plaintiff on the last occasion he visited
the job could have gone on with the
plugging.
The case was adjourned until ti\<
afternoon.
$