The Sun.
London, England, 1868-01-10 00:00:00

ACTION BY AN ARCIIIIECT.

In the Manchester Court of Record yesterday,
before i he Recorder (11. \V. \Vest, &q.), Mr. Thos.
Waddington, jun., a Manchester architect, brought
an action against the Rev. Joseph Steinthal, minis-
ter of the German Evangelical Church, to recover
£l5 15s. for plans which he alleged he had drawn
by order of the defendant, Mr. Ernest Jones and
Dr. Pankhurst appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Am-
brose for the defendant. The plaintiff's case was
that in Feb., 1866, the defendant called on him to
consult him in reference to the erection of a church
and a school. They inspected the site of the pro-
posed building in Park-street, Cheetham, and the
defendant directed him to prepare plans, but not to
go to much expense. It, was arranged between
them that the school-room should be in the rear of
the church, and that the chancel wall should also
be the wall of the schools. The defendant asked
him what were his terms, and the plaintiff said he
was to be paid five per cent. upon the amount ex-
pended on the intended buildings. At the second or
third interview the defendant asked him what his
idea was as to the cost of the buildings according
to the plans which were then being prepared, and
the defendant suggested that the plans should be
photographed, as he should feel himself to be at a
disadvantage in obtaining contributions unless he
could show something as to his intentions. Plans
were accordingly prepared which were suitable for
the photographer, and all the work which the plain-
tiff did was done upon the faith of the defendant's
representations as to the building of the chapel
would be carried out. The defendant called at
the plaintiff's office on many Saturdays between
February and June, and on one occasion he said
that the contributions were coming in with remark-
able rapidity, and he again held out expectations
that the church would be built. The plaintiff now
claimed ten guineas for the plans which he had
drawn for the church, which has not yet been built,
and the breach of the agreement was alleged to
have been committed on the 15th of June, when
the defendant said that in consequence of the Ger-
man war affecting the amount of his contributions he
could not build his chapel, and that he must build
the schoolhouse as a detached building. The plain-
tiff, expecting that the chapel would still be built
within a reasonable time, said he would not press
for payment of his account for the work he had
done, and for which he now sued. He also
claimed five guineas for copies of plans which he
had made for the use of the defendant's commit-
tee.—The defence was that the plaintiff was only en-
gaged to draw the plan for the schoolroom, for which
he had been paid, and he was told that as to the other
building the defendant would have to wait until
money was obtained, and that as to them, the plain-
tiff undertook the risk of being paid for his plans.
It was the defendant's intention first to erect the
schoolroom, then a master's house, which he was
bound by the terms of his lease to build in order to
secure the chief rent, and lastly the chapel. Ooe day
when the defendant called at the plaintiff's offices,
he saw a clerk at work upon a drawing, which
the clerk said was for the defendant's intended
chapel that he was going on with as he was not
busy. Defendant said the arrangement must be
very different to what the clerk was drawing, and
that it was of no use for him to go on with the
plans, as the congregation had not a shilling in band,
and it might be years before they could build
the chapel. To give the plaintiff's plan a fair
chance, the defendants offered to have it photo-
graphed at his (the defendant's) expense, and
the copies distributed amongst the members
of his congregation. When those plans (which
were of the church only) were finished in March the
defendant borrowed them. They were taken from
the plaintiff's office to a photographer, who, after
photographing the ground plans, sent them back,
and they were never accepted by the defendant,
whilst his supporters without exception disapproved
of them. Subsequent to that, and while the school
building was in course of erection, the plaintiff
told the defendantd-that he had some misgivings,
as he found that the site was made ground, that his
proposed chapel would never do, and that he must
put something very light on it. On a later day
the defendant saw the plaintiff's clerk at work on
two coloured elevations, which the plaintiff said
were different from the former designs. The de-
fendant's explanation with regard to the Garman
war was that he told the plaintiff he had had great
difficulty owing to that war in obtaining the money
necessary to fulfil his bargain with the contractor
for the school building, but by the greatest exertions
he had so far succeeded that -he had never missed
the payment of a single penny. In contradiction
of the plaintiff Ur. Steinthal alleged that as the
community was going to leave the meeting-house
in John Dalton-street it was resolved to build the
school first, inasmuch as that room could be used
as a chapel for a time, but the chapel could not
be used for a school, and that in fact ever since
the school had been built it had been used also as
a place of worship. As to the extra plans for the
committee, the defendant alleged that the subject
was mentioned at their first interview, when the
plaintiff agreed to include them in his per
tentage remuneration. The Recorder, in sum-
ming up the case to the jury, said he could not help
remarking that which he was always telling juries
in Manchester—viz., that it was a great pity that
people did not, before they entered into such an
agreement as was the basis of this action, put it
into writing, because there could then be no
difference between them as to its terms. How-
ever that fault seemed to have been committed by
each party in this case, and it was one which people
frequently committed. Everything being smooth
and easy at the time they thought such a state of
things would continue ; they did not foresee diffi-
culties, and did not look forward to a time when
they would have to rely on a very inefficient recol-
lection of what took place. The Jury retired, and,
after a consultation of nearly half an hour, returned
into court with a verdict for the defendant.