D'Acchioli v. Cairo
| Decision Date | 13 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 9867,9867 |
| Citation | 87 R.I. 345,141 A.2d 269 |
| Parties | Domenico D'ACCHIOLI v. George J. CAIRO et ux. Ex. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Raymond A. LaFazia, Providence, for plaintiff.
John P. Bourcier, Providence, for defendants.
This is an action in assumpsit. Trial was held before a justice of the superior court sitting without a jury and resulted in a decision for the plaintiff in the sum of $304.75 and costs. The case is before us on the defendants' bill of exceptions to the decision, to the denial of their motion for a continuance, and to certain evidentiary rulings.
The declaration is contained in the writ of attachment and alleges the common count 'for certain work and labor, skill, care and diligence, there before that time done, performed and bestowed by the plaintiff for the defendant at the defendant's request * * *.'
The plaintiff, a carpenter and within modest limits a general contractor, testified that in the summer of 1953 he inspected a house at the request of defendants and gave them a rough estimate of the cost of making certain renovations to the existing structure together with new additions; and that in making the estimate he followed a plan or sketch of the changes and construction generally desired by defendants. He further testified that he was hired to do this work at an hourly rate of $2.25 and was authorized to engage an additional carpenter at $2.50 an hour and a laborer at $1.25 an hour; that he started work in August 1953; and that he continued sporadically until the work was completed in September of the following year. He also testified that he purchased all of the lumber and supplies and credited defendants with the discount received by him; that from time to time defendants would give him a check either for the exact amount owed to the concerns from whom lumber and materials were obtained, which money was paid to those concerns, or a check in excess of the amount due in which case the excess was credited to defendants' account for work and labor; and that from time to time he went over these bills with defendants.
It appears from his testimony that he made a daily record of the hours worked by him and the others in a book kept in the regular course of business, which book was admitted as plaintiff's exhibit No. 2, and that on completion of the job he transferred the data relating to the work for defendants to another book which was admitted in evidence as plaintiff's exhibit No. 1. It also appears that the original plans for renovating and new construction were changed from time to time in the interest of economy with the consent of defendants; and that the work was completed in September 1954 at which time defendants owed a balance for work and labor. He further testified that defendants made three additional payments in the months of November and December of that year totaling $619.26, leaving an unpaid balance of $345. He later changed his testimony to claim an unpaid balance of $404.36.
The defendant George Cairo testified that he believed they had a contract for all the renovations and construction outlined in a plan prepared for the city of Providence on the basis of which a building permit was issued, and that all of this work was not to cost more than $3,000, including the cost of lumber and materials. Later he conceded that there was an agreement whereby plaintiff was to perform the work on an hourly basis.
A general contractor called by defendants as an expert testified that he had inspected the premises a short time previous to the trial; that he found the floor of the original structure sagging; and that in his opinion this was due to the manner in which the problem was approached and the failure to install 'lalli' columns for the support of the center beam. He further testified that he would have approached the problem in another manner which in his opinion would have been more effective and no more expensive, and that it would cost approximately $850 to eliminate or correct a sagging which now existed in the floor of the structure. He testified that except for a poorly-hung door and the failure to install an eight-inch piece of baseboard he could not be critical of the interior workmanship.
The defendants's son testified that he helped by stripping the inside of the existing structure and that plaintiff did no work on the job in August 1953.
The defendants' first ten exceptions relate to the exclusion of testimony offered by them but since they have waived exceptions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, they are not considered here.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Wilson v. Board of County Com'rs of Allegany County
-
Corrado v. Providence Redevelopment Agency, 1360-A
...State v. Frazier, 101 R.I. 156, 221 A.2d 468 (1966); Rietzel v. Cary, 66 R.I. 418, 19 A.2d 760 (1941). As we said in D'Acchioli v. Cairo, 87 R.I. 345, 141 A.2d 269 (1958), a view, while it is not evidence, is intended to enable a judge or a jury better to comprehend and apply the evidence a......
-
State v. Mattatall, 73-181-C
...he may admit competent evidence at any stage of the trial. Vigneau v. La Salle, 111 R.I. 179, 300 A.2d 477 (1973); D'Acchioli v. Cairo, 87 R.I. 345, 141 A.2d 269 (1958); Furlong v. Donhals, Inc., 87 R.I. 46, 137 A.2d 734 (1958); Gillogly v. New England Transp. Co., 73 R.I. 456, 57 A.2d 411 ......
-
Camaras v. Moran
...decision will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Martin v. Hammond, 89 R.I. 98, 151 A.2d 114; D'Acchioli v. Cairo, 87 R.I. 345, 141 A.2d 269. It is the joint obligation of the bar and court to dispose of litigation in an orderly, prompt and expeditious manner. Here......
-
Introduction to evidentiary foundations
...188 A. 631 (1936). Court committed reversible error by refusing counsel the opportunity to make an o൵er of proof. D’Acchioli v. Cairo , 87 R.I. 345, 141 A.2d 269 (1958). O൵er of proof rule applies to trials with and without juries. United States v. Robinson , 544 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1976). O൵......
-
Introduction to evidentiary foundations
...188 A. 631 (1936). Court committed reversible error by refusing counsel the opportunity to make an o൵er of proof. D’Acchioli v. Cairo , 87 R.I. 345, 141 A.2d 269 (1958). O൵er of proof rule applies to trials with and without juries. United States v. Robinson , 544 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1976). O൵......
-
Introduction to Evidentiary Foundations
...188 A. 631 (1936). Court committed reversible error by refusing counsel the opportunity to make an offer of proof. D’Acchioli v. Cairo , 87 R.I. 345, 141 A.2d 269 (1958). Offer of proof rule applies to trials with and without juries. United States v. Robinson , 544 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1976). ......
-
Tactics
...188 A. 631 (1936). Court committed reversible error by refusing counsel the opportunity to make an offer of proof. D’Acchioli v. Cairo , 87 R.I. 345, 141 A.2d 269 (1958). Offer of proof rule applies to trials with and without juries. United States v. Robinson , 544 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1976). ......