New-York tribune., 1878-01-18
scrvrvs . APARTMENT HOUSE PLANS

crTVFNS APARTMENT HO'"i' -.-.z. u,,,
,,cIAnp NJ. nUTT WINS IFS S'''
h"' ESTATE.
nv. snit Of Richard NJ Hunt against n"na n'
-, = md others. eEccu'IN "n' ,,c.
eta Itch la. been tIiH before JuuSo 0"u
rRn e''-' 60, Trial Term. ended Yesterday WITH
forH 81 - ,,. ,,ieiutiN for his ful claim 1He s'e'e
aNeiu 49,, ,r,irtie vl~ that Mr.. Stevens III i :" le
Nv win lam - draw the plans ana
~ s.,v,us Apartment House. ruh"Iht i'"', ~. -
'o' p~,edrAy on Twonty-seyentnSt' anu 70 CIV co.
~ crirtcu lcncc Of the construction Ior $A''''V'
20 be padiu three n-tamen's I"ool ",
toeaIso he sun Of 1000 was oio" me u ,I nf
6.s us tr v,lsv, liu Of the surcrh ,,;,,
Se,eils ty s'poiutiEs some suao'e l III appoint
eu' I'M T. nj ~ San, fl;tcnG. NJ and cc.H VIZ =. , tier
ing W. COMPLETED Nj ScyrnS ".S SSlnc- Siy If 5000
Merds rose FROM hs ted The as @ iscd in his
was Iot PAID hy n.u, aud pay uidr In Mr. stevens 10
executor Mr. Hans No a'.p .lGo Br'adway or per cent
oa fLc ,oli of the bGiidint i Nv ii,,r leaving
So Scns paid lin 800 On 'n"' Ill LIS
I"d I"d.ndants claimed as to this last Item tnai ~
60 - rotrinv but this defence was not sl3eY
r-ess,d The main defence was on IN. a., III nd
III NJ stevens to 1in !rl take thc building ~! hsuI-
i.,, him mat it would cost only $1V1'OoO W1e1 ~ v.
IL Il S-OOOOO; thdt hc cid not c0hp' ~ tiie , e
4 . II was built OF inferior materials; thal inc W%Vih % %G
50 ,ady done that much had TO be done over l,. 80
a.. r cciOrnts bad and required i'l'''
sn nat Tie heating and other appliances were liue W
OF e. r. qUrng replacing, altogether causing 0' "
2 q rron
CI he trial It was shown that the pert"@ M thc
tu.ins a crack i'm tle irUnt Ndll' ," 9 ti,r on6
,.l,, were cracked, ana that palts "l me 81
.nter arraucemeus had TO be dltereu "n" -; w. fo
80 ,t,T, of architects and others was gwen ia 70
ie adcauacy OF Mr. Hunts plans, oiiu IN, ,iod
he cia1ges made IN thcm by MI ,d
t 80, Condemnation 10 Ir. stevens as was alleged,
cSt1 "a that all the trouble had arisen from AlF'
,venss interference fr0W lis sulern'tndeh heSec',
ulcrOr materials were supplied OK rom we l",,ne ;
u, tr1u uicn and plumbers, VINO Hdu ulIt't contract
, Mr. stevens T. fulfl their contracts.
30. sanford CHARGED that To recover. MI Hunt must
a. fuat hl~ work Was SatiSlSCtOril! ana properly com
: eI rvccp, SO far as its performance had been waived
~ rv,utcd Nr SrYCUs. II he flied TO perform LIS
a. .racf to complete jhG building through any acl OF
c, sin ON bis part the defendants were enu,i'u 10
y.,ct and an award for the damages Which thcl hau
s,s arrl By Mr. SicVeusS direction the party wall was
ou. Strengthened by Inning with brick Wuik on us
o. iual foundation. When cT%ck Appeared IN ne fitn
49, front ind eating tLat the party wall had settled,
SuI Mr. Hunt though believing 10 further sctticnth
,,p md il under concrete masonry. MI stevens
roun.crmand-d the order, and directed the ahAnoil-
,oeur of tue proposed alteration In view OF ll!S. II
roul not he claimed that proper plans Tor tuo lOu0t-
sonusi,c Tor damages occdslOncd 10y thc use oI tue
marty wall Tie steam pp1s put III ~ contractors
xitl Nr. stevens. INDEPENDENTLY OF MI HuAts ltlis'
therefore responsible Tor the dcIcclNc neat
hg His ulans TO carrying water tc tlc rnoi were
also dsrcgarded The evidence as 10 the arches was
coun;c.nc II their defects arose rom dctcuNc pans
or from the plaintiffs allowing drNlltlons from tbe
mans hc had fulfilled his contract, but II they arose
nom detective workmanship bad material furnished
hy the contractors or employees OF MI Stevens or from
The negligent supervision Of Mr Paul, the planllii wac
NOT responsible. , III.
for me ula,utlT OF - 43S IA Joseph ii. ChOatc, ap
pearcd for the plantf; john E. Parsons Tor the &c
PENDANT.