The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1911-05-01
Special Judge Rupe Rules
that $4,000 Received from
Brown by Craighead Com
pany Is Enough.
CASE WAS ON TRIAL
ABOUT THREE WEEKS
The Attorneys for the Plain
tiff Company Have Not
Decided Whether an APP
peal Will Be Taken.

That Albert H. Brown, owner of the
Westcott hotel building had paid to
the Craighead Plumbing and Electri-
cal company for improvements to the
hotel, including replumbing and re-
wiring, more than the work was act
ually worth, was the decision made
Monday in the Wayne circuit court by
Special Judge John L. Rupe, who pre-
sided in the long drawn out trial in
which the plumbing and electrical
company sought to secure judgment
for approximately $500. which the
complainant alleged, remained unpaid
according to an agreement with
Brown.
The decision of the court means, un-
less 1t is reversed on an appeal, the
plumbing and electrical company will
not only lose in its contention, but will
also have to pay the court costs which
amount to several hundred dollars, in
Guiding fees for it's attorneys. The
trial lasted twenty days, starting in
March and ending in April, and was
a spirited legal battle W. H. Kelley
and John F. Robbins were attorneys
for the plumbing and electrical COM
pany and H. U. Johnson and T. J.
Study appeared for the defendant.
bayfield, Affected.
BY Judge RUPEES decision the com
planning company can collect from w.
E. Bayfield,. lessee OF the hotel build
ing. approximately $500 for the install
lation OF the hot water system
Whether an appeal will be made has
not yet been determined by counsel
for the plumbing and electrical COM
pany. The improvements to the hotel
| were made in 1909. The bill for the
| work is said to have been approx
mately $4,000. Brown paid $1,000
and suit was then brought in the cir
cult court in October, 1910. in which
the plumbing and electrical company
made demand for approximately $1O.-
600. Subsequent to fling the COM
plant Brown made another payment
of $4,000 which made the total amount
paid on the work $4,000. The COM
last March made demand for $1,000,
the alleged unpaid balance on the
work. it having conceded by errors in
bookkeeping and the like, it had orig
inally demanded too much.
The court held that the preponder-
ance of the evidence showed the spe-
cial contract claimed by the defend
ant Brown was made between the par
ties, viz: That the plaintiff was to pur-
chase all material and employ the ne
cessary labor for both the plumbing
and electric work. furnish Brown in
voices showing cost and this amount
Brown was to pay with 10 per cent
added for plaintiffs profit.
The plaintiffs bill was made out,
and stated in the complaint, in the ba.
sis that no special contract existed,
and that the plaintiff was entitled to
charge usual prices for the material
and labor. The court however, finding
the special contract as stated, exist
ed, computed the amount of the actual
cost of the material as shown by the
plaintiffs invoices and otherwise, and
the cost of the labor as shown by the
lcomplainant's time account, allowing
Is per cent upon the cost of material
for freights and drayage.
/ AS part OF the plumbing work, a
hot water line was put in about which
there was a controversy between the
parties, and this work it was found
amounted to $451.0O.
The plaintiff conceded that before
Mr.. Brown left for the west he coun
, fernandez the order for this hot water
line and directed that it be omitted
from the work.
The plaintiff claimed that this hot
water line was put in upon the order
OF Mr.. Browns son-in-law. but this was
disputed by the defendant and the evi
dence showed that this line was put in
upon the written order of Mr. Bayfield,
the lessee. in which order it was stat
ed the plaintiff should put in the line
and that If Brown refused to pay FOL
: it, he (Bayfield) would.
) Mr. Bayfield, testified that Browns
son-in-law had nothing to do with the
, putting in of the line and was not pres
, ent when it was talked of. The Cour,
held, as to this, that the evidence die
| not show this line was put in or
Browns order and that it should be
!. eliminated from the case and the
i plaintiff should look to Bayfield, fol
, this settlement and that Bayfield, and
Brown should settle that matter be
[ tween themselves.
d AS the court computed the amount,
: due under the special contract. it wa,
found it was something less thar
SIC, 100000. and it being conceded tha'
: SIG, 10000 had been paid by Brown fol
: the work. the general conclusion
reached By the court was, that ther.
. was nothing more due the Craisheas
company.