The daily gazette., 1882-12-12
REPRlNrgp FRoM YEsrERnAY
AN ARCHITECTS 1ILL.
<EGw Thorne Attempting TO Got Pay for


Getting Up Plans.
rContinued from arst edition.l
The case Of William Polk and E. X.
Cochran and Charles Tantum, Jr., against
James MeMullen, executor Of Mary Riley,
deceased, garnishee Of John NJ. Woods, were
dismissed.
The matter Of James II. Larazelere 4 Co.
Va. Carr & Smeltz was continued at the in
stance OF s. A. Macallister, Esq, council
for plaintiff.
A Jury was then drawn In the case of
Edwin W. Thorne We. G. Wesley Welding
and the case was stated to the jury BY
Benj. Nelds, Esq. He stated that MIR.
Thorne as an architect and builder
had done work for Mr.. Weldin,
q lumber merchant, and the suit was
for $40 with interest from Nov. 4, 1879.
In 1879 Mr. Thorne went TO see Mr.. We'll
din about getting some lumber for house
he was building. Mr.. Weldin then stated
that he was about to build house and
wanted plaintiff to prepare plans. The
plaintiff agreed and said that If he got the
contract for building the house he would
charge nothing for the plans. but the de
fendaut said he would pay for the plans.
Witness, therefore, went to work and pre-
pared plans for residence which were ac-
vepted, after few alterations. The
house was built, but the defendant had
never received payment for his plans and
specifications.
Edwin w. Thorne, on being sworn, said
that early In April, 1873, being about TO
build house for Pancoast Allen he went
went to see Mr.. Weldin about getting more
lumber; Wcldin said he was going to build
but wanted the matter kept quiet, as he
would be overrun by builders If his inten.
tions were known; told Weldin he would
charge nothing for architectural services i
he got the job of building; Weldin said h
was willing il witness did not do the build
ing, to pay what was right for the archi
tectural services; Weldin irequenuy saw
witness about the plans, which wer'
worked at odd times, made alter
stions according to suggestions o
defendant plans and specifications wer'
delivered defendant expressed himsel
pleased with Plaintiffs work, with the ex
cep,ion of little stiffness ON the porch
architechnical work is generally worth "
per cent. on the cost of building witnes
charged only per cent, estimating tn
cost of the building at s., 900, and expressed
At the time drawings were made he woul'
buildit for that sum.
The original drawings for the house, witt
the exception Of the elevations, were pre-
seuted and explained by the witness an
offered in evi ience
On cross-examination By Lore the wit
ness stated that, Mt the instance of MI
cum, ut Nlslhth AuC SNiiaA VI tAN hNNN
and saw that the foundation walls were a.
right; he had seen a set of plans made b
E. L. Rice and upon them made bid I
build the house Rice's plans were identica
almost with those of 1horne's; numbe
Of carpenters made bids and the contraS
was given to Strickland y Archer who wei
the highest bidders witness had understoo
distinctly from Mr.. Widen that he preferre
Thorne to do the work, but would have
ask for bids to give other carpenters shop
witness had offered to do the carpenter wor
the 5000 during the winter.
The witness declared that the generi
style of the building was similar TO h
plans, and stated that Mr.. Weldin had give
the measurements to Mr.. Rice.
A close examination then took place as
the difference between the house as 1t no
stands and the plans made by Thorne, whc
the latter stated was slight in some respect
At / o'clock Court adjourned.
When court adjourned the jury In I'll
urtv-Lockwood case was still out, an
is thought TO have hung.