This was an action brought by plaintiff, 1a building contractor of Shanghai, against Messrs. Atkinson and Dallas, civil engineers and architects of Shanghai, for breach of contract in respect of building work ordered.
Mr. T. Morgan Phillips (Messrs. Drummond and Philips), appeared for the Plaintid, and Mr, H.-P, Wilkinson (Moses. Wilkinson and Parkes) for the defendants, Mr. Phillips at once opened the proceedings by reading the Petition and answer, which were as under 1.—The plaintiff is a Chinese subject and ise building contractor residing at Shanghai.
The defendants are British subjects ud are architects practising at Shai 3.—In or about the month of ct. 1897 the 84!
ordered certain drainage, cement ing and other works to be done by the pi on and about house then being built near the Sinza Road.
4.—The plaintiff proceeded with the said works and completed the sane in a workmanlike and satisfactory manner.
5.—On or about the month of February, 1898, the defendants paid to the plaintiff the gum of Tle. 450 on account of the said works.
6.—On the 13th July 1898 the plaintiff furnished to. the defendants his account of charges for the said works done by him showing assum of Tle, 1,161.26 to be due to him after giving credit' for the sum of 'Tls. 450 aforesaid the charges made for the said work being fair and reasonable and in accordance with the rates then current in Shanghai. of the said' amount of Tis, 1,161.26 from the "j.—The plaintiff has demanded payment defendants, but they have refused and still refuse to pay the same.
The Plaintiff therefore prays 1.—That, the defendants may be ordered to pay to him the said sum of Tls. 1,161.26 together with interest on the said sum at the rate of 8 Tis. per cent. per annum from the 15th day of July until judgment. psy to the plaintiff his costs of suit.
2.—Thot the defendants may be decreed to '3.—For such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.
ANSWER, L.—The Defendants admit paragraphs 1 and 2 of the said Petition.
'2. The Defendants deny paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the said Petition and in further answer thereto say as follows:
—The Defendants were not at the times set out in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the said Petition practising together as architects at t"On or about the date alleged in paragraph 3 of the said petition Brenan Atkinson, one of the above named Defendants, architect to and agent thereto duly appointed and empowered of Rhoderick McNeill Angus Campbell of Shanghai aforesaid hired engaged and employed the plaintiff to do and perform certain work as contractor in and upon a house then in course of construction Shanghai aforesaid the property of the sai Rhoderick McNeill Angus Campbell at and for such price and remuneration to be paid by the said Rhoderick McNeill Angus Carop-Gell to the plaintiff and in such sums and at such times as the said Brenan Atkinson should by his certificate in writing direct. said Brenan Atkinson wut for the said 8,—The plant thereupon agreed with the Rhoderick McNeill Angus Campbell xs aforesaid to do and perform the said work in consideration of the said payment and remuneration to be paid as aforesaid. of Mr. Campbell in connection with the perform the said work to the satisfaction of business or the contract whatever. How-the said Brenan Atkinson. ever, he took the certificates to Mr. Camp-7—On or about the date alleged in para-bell personally. Mr. Campbell received graph 5 of the said petition the said Brenan Atkinson as Agent as aforesaid of the said them and placed them with a letter in an Rhoderick McNeill Angus Campbell paid to envelope which he entrusted the plaintiff the plaintiff the sum of Tls. $50. to deliver to the defendant. This was dono 8.—On or about the 15th day of December but he disclaimed any connection with the 1898 the said Brenan Atkinson fixed the matter. Subsequently Mr. Atkinson remuneration then due and owing to the refused to pay or to admit that the plaintiff bythe ssid Rhoderick MeNeill Angus plaintiff any claim against him; mpbell at the respective sums of Tls. 400 had he must bring the matter into and Tis, 160 and gave to plaintiff signed cer-Court. Accordingly after consulting his tificate in writing to that effect. legal advisers the plaintiff had brought the '9.—The said Brenan Atkinson on the 22nd matter into Court. As his Lordship would. day of March certified that the sum of Tis. see by the answer it was admitted that the 297.12 the balance payable to the Plaintiff b work had been done to the satisfaction of the said Rhoderick McNeill Angus Campbell the said Brenan Atkinson but it was aver-for work done and performed as aforesaid was due and payable. The signed certificate red that the defendant was acting as the to that effect of the ssid Brenan Atkinson is agent of Mr. Campbell and as such was not hereto annexed. the principal in this matter, Thus the onus 10,—The plaintiff has never save through was of course upon the defendant to show his legal advisor demanded from the defen-that he was acting as agent for Mr. Campdants or either of them payment of the sum bell. Primarily he was liable. He gave the of Tie, 1,161 or any sum, order for the work to be done and it was 11.—The defendants therefore pr: for him to show that ho was acting as (.)—That this suit may be dismissed. agent for Mr. Campbell and so gave the }—That they do recover their costs of order; and, moreover, not only acting as suit. agent but that he actually gave the order Counsel continuing said that it was disas agent for Mr. Campbell. It was evident closed from the answer that at the time that' there was some dispute between this contract was entered into Mr. Dallas Mr. Cumpbell and Mr. Atkinson and he was not a partner of Mr. Atkinson and con-though it would have been better to have ently the name of Mr. Dallas was ex-introduced Mr. Campbell as a third party, cluded from the case. The facts seemed to be so that the whole matter could be finally extremely simple as also th" issue involved. determined.
His client who had been carrying oribis busi-Mr. Wilkinson said he thought it was ness in Shanghai fora considerable time was only right to say that he was instructed to most respectable man and had been several state that Mr. Campbell had as a matter of times employed by the Municipal Counci fact made arrangements in. regard to the It was in that way he believed that he frst two certificates wi had been mentioned. of all became acquainted with Mr. Atkin-Mr. Phillips said that this was the first son, for at that time Mr. Dallas was in the intimation of the kind that he had received. employment of the Municipal Council and His Lordship asked if it was necessary he asked him to communicate with Mr. to go into a question which was practically Atkinson who he said might be able to settled, and suggested an adjournment. put some work in his way. Accordingly He remarked that as Mr. Campbell had some tine about the end of 1897 Mr. agreed to pay the greater proportion of Atkinson ordered the plaintiff to do certain the claim it would be wiser to adjourn work in connection with a house then being the case for a week with a view to a built for Mr. R. 'M. Campbell in Sinza settlement.
Road, and the work he was correct in say-After a little discussion Counsel on ing was drainage—subterranean drainage either side accepted the suggestion and that was as distinguished from surface the further hearing was adjourned until drainage. This work was ordered about the 18th inst. the end of 1897 and was completed before the end of February 1898, and at this time the defendant, Mr. Atkinson, made payment in respect of this work of Ts.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.