The New York herald., 1876-12-17
Legal Rela tions Of Architects
and Builders.
RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS.
Worthless Assets Of the
Worth Club.
A CRAZY INSURANCE AGENT.
Inner Consciousness of a Tired and Dis
gusted Judge.

case trial and unfinished before Chief
Justice Shea and jury IN tho Marine Court presents
features particularly interesting TO property
In the month or February, 1875, Mr Robert Finan.
who for mary years has been jantor, concluded TO
invest the careful savings OF lifetime in the erection
OF building on lot which he owned in Long Island
City. He employed man named Bernard McGnrs.
who that time holding himself IN
city as an architect, prepare plans and specin-
cations Tor the style OF building he desired
10 have erected. According 10 these plans and
specifications he concluded contract With one
Joseph Ross irsi class four story tenement
house, composed Of certain materials specified The
cost OF the building 10 be $500 payable in In
stalmcnts the work progressed All The install
ments were paid in the order OF time named in the
except Sss5 OF the last nstalmcnt OF So $50
This amount withheld by Mr.. Finan the ground
that he had discovered that the building had not been
completed in workmanke manner and that materi
mis- inferior those called Tor by tho contract and
specifications had been used by Ross in its coustruc-
By the faulty construction OF the building and
the interorty o, the materials used Mr.. Fnan
claimed 10 have been damaged not only TO the extent
OF the ssS5 withheld by him. but also 10 the further
extent OF 81 900 that beng the estimate OF experts
10 the dlert nee between the value OF the building
erected by Ross, the contractor, and the building
which he required TO erect IN conformity with
contract Ross instituted proceedings, under The Me-
chances Lien law, 10 enforce against The properly his
due under contract, the additional IN OF a
Itlle 500 for what he claimed 10 have been
ira work, making nearly 1000 IN nj The
sent To reieree but before II was concluded Ross,
Ending himself uniorcd by sufficient testimony, dis
continued aud paid costs he ihen commenced
suit the Marine Court, which
Mr. Fnan made answer setting up the failure Of Ros
10 perform his contract. and by reason OF such
performance had been damaged not only IN the amount
GAINED by Ross, but also 10 the additional amount OF
$500, Tor which latter sum he asked Judgment
against the contractor The on for trial be-
Jury,
trial Mr. Flnan introduced large number OF wit
nesses mechanics and experts, whose testimony was
10 the effect that the building had been
n good and workn,anlike manner, as required by the
contract that The cellar was not Of The required der,h
The Orders ana nxtures insufficient
Der, the woodwork inferior, ine plaster 100
much sanded and the wall out OF plumb, that
I'm act of tho witnesses testified he had heard
Ross say his sub-cohtractcr IL was skn joDm All
these defects the witnesses estimated as resulting
damage to Mr. Finan IN about the amount demanded
In his answer as counter claim The jury found n
favor OF the pianlin, Dut only Tor small portion
the amount claimed by him. so glarmgly This
verdict opposition tho testimony however. that
the Judge, motion OF Mr. samuel &. Courtney, Mr.
Fnan's counsel promptly SCI u aside as beng against
The weight oi testimony. Tue case then came up Tor
irla at a subsequent term before Judge Alker ami
jury. On Tins occasion The pianun presented himself
rcivng specially on certificate OF the architect
Mctiurk. to the eject that the work had been per-
formed MS ''slllsacon according 10 The contractn
This certificate Judge Aker held 10 DO conclusive
against Mr. Finan, and refused hls counsel permis-
sion show that false IN fact and given
The result OF collision ana conspiracy 3ctween The
architect and the Tho result that the
Court directed verdict IN favor OF paintin for the
in amount GAINED, thus holding that The architect
sort OF arbitrator asscntcd 70 by both parties
The contract, ana Lila, his VAS
binding on both, whether true false. fraudulent
or honest From this decision Mr.. Courtney appealed
the General Term ana there Judge Akcf's mcTprc-
taion OF the iaw reversed and new ral ordered
This new trial is The one now progressing AGAIN the
plaintiff came 10 the scratch armed wlh the lTchi-
icct's certioate and his counsel, Mr. Winfield. rested
hs case. after putting evidence the
certificate. A long argument cnsued between counsel
10 whether his certificate was not too indefinite,
II binding. II stating merely generally
that the work had been performed 'nccordng
10 contract his satisfaction without spe-
cidcaly naming tho work referred TO also whether
The SUIT had not been prematurcy commenced by
top OF the fact Thai this certificate WAS not exhibited
It's contents mentioned TO Mr. Finan when demand
made OF HIM for payment before SUIT brought.
On these questions Chief Justice shea reserved his
rison aud adjourned the turlhcr hearing the case
until Tuesday next, when The testimony OF Mr.. Flnan
the lalsity aud fraud OF The architects certificate
Is Intended to be introduced. The result 0 the
will decide FAR IL eau, The questions whether an
architect any arbitrator; whether
he IS thing more than mere guide and protection
10 the property owner who employs uad rays HIM,
and whether his ccrLlcate. though VIGOROUSLY false
bind such owner and wrench his hard earnings
frop HE