Mr Jones said that there was no evidence in that Mr. Joseph would not have paid if certificates had been issued by the architect and continued to quote from Hickman & Ca. versus Roberts to show that there was no connection between the two cases.
Throughout the afternoon session, Mr. Jones continued to quote law in defence of his case and maintained that the present case could not be compared with those quoted by counsel for the plaintiff In particular, he contended again that the case of Hickman versus Roberts was in no way identical with the present case Messrs. and, therefore, could not be taken as a basis for it.
In referring to the eviction of the contractor's workers from the its, With regard to plaintiff's claim for the return of the securities deposited with defendant, Mr. Jones said that his client had refused to do so be-Cause the defence was that these securities were to be kept until the premises on June 25, 1938, Mr, Jones pointed out that g to the contract, permission had to be obtained from the architect to enter the premises or to eject workmen from the premises, He contended, therefore, that in a letter to the agents of the owner, the architect had signified that the owner bad the contractor had not complied with his power to take over again after the
notice in a satisfactory manner by
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.