The hearing of this cass was resumed this morning.
Mr. Atkingon, re-called at the request of Mr. Hanson, said the details of the Broadway contract were settled by him. He produced " sketch-plan, from memory, of what the house in the Broadway was like before the fire, His plan showed 16 internal doors, 1 front dour, 17 long windows, and 18 short. windows, That did not include the attic or the servant's quarters, By Me, Wilki He believed the difference in the quantity of the corrugated iron used on the Seward Road houses was explained by the fact that iron was used in some places where the original specification arranged for tiling. He thought that would explain the difference between the laintif'e and Mr. Evans' calculation, Kingsmill's statement about the doors and windows in the old house in Broadway wan by no means correct, Witness wns being questioned as tu the number of doors and windows, when Mr. J.C. Bois (w Juror) remarked that as he understood it Lung Poi was to pay for the doors and windows he actually used, not for the number in the house, Wit 1 reply to some questions by Mr. Bois, said he was aware of the arrangement betivoen the plaintiff and defendant that the Intter should supply some of the materials, but it was not put into the o tract. 'The specification said a cer quality of iron had to be used, and the plaintiff' would not be able to get that ality in Shanghai unless he got it from Mr. H.G. Dufour, who was employed by the defendant to look after the hoses in course of construction, said he saw the plaintiff remove some windows, ete., from the Broadway house which had' been burned, He renuonstrated with the plaintiff, but the latter said the things belonged to him, This closed the case for the defendant.
Mr. Hanson, in addressing the Court on behalf of the defence, remarked that no doubt the Jury had now heard something of the plessures of house building, and had gumed sume experience in the matter, but whether that would be sufficient compen-nation for the time thay had the Court was another ques were two questions which the Jury would have to decide, first as to what was due to the plaintiff in respect of the two accounts of the Seward Road property and Broadway property, and secondly what was due to the defendant from the plaintiff in respect of the suns which he claimed as a set-off. In respect of the Seward Road property the plaintiff claimed Tis, 685.48 from which had to be deducted is. 216 as estimated by Mr. Kingsmill, leaving Tis, 469.48, With regard to the Broadway, the amount claimed on the account referred to in the petition was Tls. 1,172.77. From that had to be deducted the small item referred to, by Mr. Kingsmill of Tis, 17.59, There was a further estimate of a deduction of Tls. 312 to be made, from which Tis, 140 had to be deducted leaving Tls. 172. The two items came to Tls. 189.59, which deducted from is 1,172.77 left is, 983.18, Adding thst to the amount claimed for the Seward Road houses there was a total of Tis.
1,452.66, The plaintiff in his petition then allowed a deduction of Tls. 503 11 in respect of materials supplied by the defendant, That would reduce the net claim to Tis.
The Jury, after deliberating in private for twenty minutes, returned into Court, with a verdict for the plaintiff for Tls. 574.43.
His Locdship accordingly gave judgment for that amount, with costs, Addressing the Jury, he thanked them for the patient way in which they lad heard the case, and thanked the counsel also for the way they had assisted the Court. He took the opportunity to compliment Mr. Hanson upon his conduct of the case, particularly as it was his first appearance in that Court,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.