The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1874-09-26 00:00:00

ACTION TO RECOVER EXTRAS ON A
BUILDING CONTRACT.

At the County Court on Saturday, the case of
Pritchard v. Golding was called on before the
Judge, Mr. Rupert Kettle. This was a new trial
in a cause in which the plaintiff sought to recover
4:6 135., claimed for extras on a building contract.
Mr. Perry was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wall
for the defendant.
Mr. Pritchard was called, and stated that the
extras charged for were such as having "stone
dressing" to the windows, &c., all having to be
executed by the defendant himself.
For the defendant, Mr. Leonard was called and
stated that he had not given instructions to the
plaintiff to put the stone window sills. The cellar
floor should have been laid in a workman-like man-
ner, according to agreement. The cost of labour
for the laying the flour would be about is 6d.
Mr. Golden (defendant) alleged that plantiff of-
fered to put in the stone sills at his own expense,
as he said, to make the work look better as it was
the first job he had had since he came bark. The
cellar was only laid in common bricks at 28e per
thousand. With reference to the extra painting
alleged to have been doneby plaintiff, he (defend-
ant) had a bill from a Mr. Wyre for painting the
windows in the old building. He had authorised
Wyre to paint it, and he expected to pay him for
it He did not want the stone dressings put to the
windows. It was done entirely by the plaintiff
himself. _ _ _ .

Before this case was decided, a counter action
was heard, in which Mr. Golding claimed 19s for
1 ton 1 cwt. of lime which he had sold to Pritchard
and also for two loads of sand at 45 per load, and
lOs 61 for a door. Defendant had agreed to take
them at that price.
In cross-examination by Mr. Perry, Mr. Golding
said that when he intended to make the alterations
he had provided himself with the lime and sand.
He had not agreed for Pritchard to take to it at
£lss. . _

Mr. Perry here handed a paper to Mr. Golding,
and asked him if that was his signature that was
on it. _ _

Mr. Golding (after reading the paper) said he
could not say that was his signature.
Mr. Perry repeated his query, and Mr. Golding
said he would not swear either way, that it was his
signature, or that it was not.
Mr. Perry failing to elict a satisfactory answer,
His Honour rose from his seat, and going over
to plaintiff he said he would soon settle the ques.
tions. He then said to Golding It is bad for a
plaintiff, before me, when asked as to his signature
to read over the paper before he answers. (To
plaintiff) : Is that your signature?
Plaintiff I could not swear to it. Look here,
Mistress (signalling to his wife, who was in Court).
His Honour (who ignored the wife's presence):
Is that your signature? That is what I want to
know ?—Plaintiff I wont swear to it.

You wont swear either way ?—No.
Will you be kind enough to wright your name
there (handing plaintiff a book) P—Well, sir, 1 will.
The plaintiff having signed his name as requested
His Honour handed the document put in, saying
—Now just look at that. Is not that your sig-
nature?

The plaintiff ; I dare say almost it ie.
Is it not your signature ?—Your Honour, I won't
be sure about it. . .

Is that your signature ?—I am not quite sure
about it.

Now just let us look at it P—l don't remember
writing it, nor that any one paid me a farthing
or not. _ . .

Is that your signature: I won't swear whether
it is or not. I cannot tell: .

...
That is your answer P—l cannot tell, sir.
Mr. Perry was about to resmue the cross-exami-
nation, when
His Honour stopped the case, remarking : When
a man tells me he does not know that that is his
signature (referring to the document handed in),
after writing his name in that book, I don't believe
a word he says—(sensation). Judgement for the
plaintiff in the first action, costs, Is.; and judg-
ment for the defendant in the second action.

His Honour then said: As this paper (the docu-
ment handed in) has not been read, I may say that
there is a bill and receipt for the articles that have
been entered in the cross-action; and there is not
the slightest doubt, that this is his own receipt
which is put in, but which he persists in swearing
he does not know his own handwriting.
In answer to Mr. Perry, . .

His Honour said he would have the costs of the
day, but he could not have the costs of the former
trial.