Witness went on to state that when he was informed of this, he immediately went to the police to ask for reasons for the eviction and later received a written report from the police. The matter was reported to the architects and in a letter dated June 28, they informed him that they had no knowledge of the occurrence, Witness then described at length the difficulties which he had to face while working on defendant's site, in view of the fact that the agents, who ere also a firm of architects, gave instructions for alterations of work in course of completion. He then gave further details as to the alleged interference by the agents.
Cross-examining, Mr, Jones asked witness whether he had worked in collaboration with Messrs. Davis, Brooke & Gran on previous occasions during his seventeen years as a contractor. Plaintiff said that he had and that among the buildings constructed on behalf of this firm, is the Medhurst Apartment Building.
In reply to another question, witness stated that he was fully familiar with the terms of contracts such as the one signed between him and plaintiff, Asked whether the $15,000 due him on the first certificate had been promptly paid, Mr. ¿Loh said that this was the case.
In reply to further questions, witness added that Messrs, Davie: Brooke & Gran had given him facility for purchasing materials and that he had deposited money with them in order that they should procure certain materials, such as cement, for him, He denied, however, that the cement which was bought at that time was cheaper than prior to the local hostilities, Certificate Not Given Force Majeure In reply to a question by His Lordship, witness said that he owned two yards, ore on Ferry Road and the Other at the corner of Ferry and Penang Roads.
On November 8, 1937, he added, he put in an application for the first payment of $34,000 but the architect, witness claimed, only certified $15,000, promising to issue a certificate for the balance when work would be resumed.
"In view of the fact that work had been suspended and that Mr. Brooke (of Messis. Davies, Brooke & Gran) had given me his assurances that I would get the rest as soon as work would start again," witness continued, "I accepted this amount On March 1, 1928, witness said, he received a letter from the architects, "Did you know that Mr, Joseph was very concerned about the delay in the resumption of work?", Mr. Jones asked, "Yes, but the reasons for the delay were beyond my control and I was prepared to carry out the contract, irrespective of the higher price of materials," Mr, Loh replied.
Mr, Jones—"I put it to you, that} in your letter to the architects, you ated that you would have to receive payment $5,650 other wi: you would be unable to go on with the work."
Mr. Loh:—T always submit my applications to the architects who, being impartial, decide." requesting him to start work again within fourteen days, and work was started before March 14.
On March 26, witness stated, another application was forwarded to the architects for $5,660 in respect to the extra cost of additional materials purchased for the. completion of foundation work and, although no reply was received, wei was continued, being completed o May 20, on which day, witness personally presented another application for $33,560.15 to Brooke, who alleged to have told him that he (Loh) would receive the certificate on the following da:
"When I coke the following day," rined, showed me a lette the fendant's agents, Messrs. Atkinson Dallas, Ltd., stating that the architacts should not give me the certificate but that I would receive a letter in due course. I then received a letter demand assurances that work would be carried out punch tually in future. I in turn replied to the archit writing, pointing out my position.
cts from the letter in question were then read to the Court {rora which it transpired that unless plaintiff received the money due him in addition to a compensation towards the increase in the costs of materials, he could give no ances.
On May 23, witness. added, a further application for $8,113.60 covering cost of extra purchases of materials was handed to Mr, Brooke and on May 31, he received a letter complaining of the fact that in the opinion of the architects, there were insufücient materials on the site and threatening that a change in contractors would be made unless cer-ask for $1,000 and only get $200 and no more,"
In reply to another question, wit-stated that Mr. Brooke alway much materials were on the site.
Jones then referred to a meet-Which took place on April 8 and which Messrs, Priestwood, Joseph, Brook and the plaintiff attended. He asked whether witness hed then said that he was unable to avoid th delay due to force majeure, Wit said that he did not re Asked whether he w with the last paragraph of the agrce-1 ment, according to which the agreement was binding irrespective of the fluctuation in the costs of materials, w stated that he was, but thal in his opinion this only referred io Customs duty The case was then adjourned and Mr, Jones will continue his cross-examination this morning,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.