Bell, defendants' secretary and manager, stated that they were not claiming'on account of delay in the work, but for loss sustained through mistakes in the plans. Plaintiffs gave them plans which provided for wooden construction in some parts of the building instead of reinforeed conerete, and these were given as detailed working plans. Witness understood the plans had been passed by the. Council. He supposed the architects had to pass the plans through the Council and then hand them over to the builder to go on with the work. They did zo on with the work, but the Coun spectors came ami told riem the regulations did not permit the use of wood of any kind in a theatre roof. Further, they: produced plans which bore the Council's stamp, and these showed no wood at all.' Mr. good told witness that if plans cor tent, in a Indicated by plaintiffs feel.
the ointment.
ching fr which shee had been
nce-of Ths. luimed the bal) #isine wood const "paid, and
together with Dr. Thomas Dunn stated that in Tis, 2000 for extra work done, Det. Passed. The result was they had to his opinion the ointment ured ax] fendants counter-claimed for 'Tle, $0 the work, take down part Heseribiad would have caused a burn= cost incurred. through ulz{t€ structure, and replace it with renovation lasting for a halt or teged defects in plaintiffs' plans, "eel roofing, this involving six three-quarters of an hour, It would
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.