installed; roof to be given another layer of felt and two layers of asphalt; certain brickwork to be removed and reset; railings around areas not secured to the brick walls by expansion bolts; rubbish not removed (rom the site; plaster beams not finished; coal chute doors not properly set; window frames not properly caulked; stair stringers loose; fire escapes to be painted; fills around the walls not soaked and tamped; broken glass to be replaced; all glass to be cleaned; certain plastering to be replastered, and certain varnishing to be done.
On February 6, 1918, the contractor advised the plaintiff that his men had left a large pile of debris on the west side of the building; that if must be removed immediately or he would instruct the owners to remove it; that the hotel committee had employed a man to heat the building at $50 per month, and had directed the expense thereof to be charged to the contractor. On February 15, 1918, plaintiff wrote the architect and the defendant that the hotel job was completed and that he would not further heat the building. It appears that later the plaintiff had a conference with the hotel committee, and the defects in the construction of the building were considered and an inspection trip made by the parties through the construction. Thereafter, in May, 1918, plaintiff did further work on the building, and later advised the architect that the hotel building was complete. After the building was left by the plaintiff, the defendant heated the building and hired a foreman. It had certain work done on the construction, for which it paid out various sums of money, such as for redecorating, for lumber bills, for coal and labor, carpenter work, and such other items. These amount to approximately $1,000.
On the part of the defense, testimony was adduced that the plaintiff had incompetent workmen; that the work was performed in a careless, hasty, and unworkmanlike manner, of which the contractor had notice; that, in particular, the cistern walls were not waterproofed according to specifications, although the plaintiff did the work twice; that the work would have to be done again and would cost $800 to replace; that a concrete coping was put on the wall not in accordance with the plans and specifications; that this coping cracked or fell off; that it was ordered off, and the plaintiff installed another and this was likewise defective; that it endangered the walls in its present shape; that the roof job was poor; that roof boards were installed when wet and upon drying they curled; that in reinstalling the coping the roof was damaged and
