| Notes: | The Ipswich Journal
Saturday, 14 Oct 1865, Page 3
DISS COUNTY COURT,
Monday, October 9.
(Before John Worlledge. Esq., Judge.)
DISPUTED LIABILITY.
Banham v. Bourne. - This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a builder, at Winfarthing, to recover from the defendant, a gentleman of independent means, residing at Babergh Hall, near Sudbury, the sum of £50 for work done and materials used for the same, provided in the alteration and repairs of a cottage, the property of the defendant, situated at Winfarthing. The plaintiff's demand consisted of two parts; and he abandoned 18s. 9d., the excess over the £50, to bring it within the jurisdiction of this Court.
The circumstances out of which this case arose were very melancholy. The defendant’s son was for many years the curate of Winfarthing, and in the early part of this year, while employed in the faithful discharge of his ministerial duties in visiting the sick, he caught small-pox of a very virulent nature, of which he died, leaving a widow and several children almost totally unprovided for. After her husband’s death the poor widow wished to remain at Winfarthing, and, although somewhat against the defendant’s wishes, it was arranged that certain alterations should be made in the cottage referred to, which is the defendant’s property, to fit it for his daughter-in-law’s residence. Mrs. Bourne, the widow, accordingly applied to a plumber and glazier, named Foyster, to make an estimate for certain work in his line to be done at the cottage, and to get Banham, the plaintive, to make an estimate for bricklayers’ and carpenters’ work, also to be done at the cottage; and Mrs. Bourne, Foyster, and Banham went over the cottage together, and the work required was pointed out and the estimates made, and Foyster took both his own and the plaintiff’s estimate to the Rectory, where Mrs. Bourne was then living, and delivered the estimate to her in the presence of the defendant and his daughter, when defendant said he would take them and look them over, which he did. This took place in February last, and shortly afterwards Mrs. Bourne directed Banham and Foyster to set to work, which they did, but nothing was expressly said as to who was to pay for it. Various other work beyond that included in the plaintiff’s estimate, was done in and about the cottage, by Mrs. Bourne’s orders, Mr. Bourne living at a distance, and being seldom present on the premises. In three instances Mr. Bourne interfered, and gave orders for certain work to be done. After the bill was made out, the plaintiff offered it to defendant, but he refused to take it, and utterly repudiated all liability to the plaintiff for any part of the work, and the defence at the trial was; at first, that the poor widow was liable for the whole, and that the whole was done by her order, and upon her credit: but the defendant, who conducted his own case, in the course of it, admitted that he was liable for what was included in the original estimate for £16 2s. 4d., and also for that which in the course of the work, he personally gave orders for. Mrs. Bourne, the widow, was also examined, and she said she had the defendant’s permission to have all done that she wished, but that she considered herself personally responsible for all the work; but when asked from what source she expected to be able to pay the bills, she said she hoped her friends would help her.
His Honour said: I wonder at the defendant attempting by such evidence to shift the burden from his own shoulders to those of the destitute widow, but it will not avail him, for, considering that he is the owner of the cottage, I am of opinion that by his conduct with reference to, and by admitting his liability for what was intended in the original estimate, and by interfering as he did in the course of the work, he held himself out as being responsible. I, therefore, decide the case in the plaintiff’s favour; and as no evidence was called for the defence to show that the demand is exorbitant, I give judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, with costs. |
