CONDEMNED PREMISES.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 68, 13 December 1907, Page 7

CONDEMNED PREMISES.

A SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT.

~-p L Cas . e of tlie City Council v. Hamilton Gilmer, charged with having failed to null «°wn a condemned building, No. 205 Lambtoi Quay, occupied by Warnock and Adkin, was resumed before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.JI! Mr. Myers (with him Mr. O'Shca) appeared ■lor the Corporation, and Mr. Skerrett, K.C., lor clefemlautv •• , .

Dr. Makgill, cross-examined by Mr. Skerr Ili a , vc .'A:' ls ''' s opinion that the upper story or the building could be ventilated, and that the defccts were remediable. The lighting of one or two passages could bo improved. Although portions of the building were worm* eaten, it was not also decayed: Perhaps 90 per ccnt. might- ho -worm-eaten, and 40 per ceut, decayed. Tlio smell alone was not the ground for condemning the building. The musty' smell was, usually a sign of damp foundation!

' Ke-cxamincd by Mr. Myers, witness said that; having regard to the dccayed condition of the framework, the ventilation and drainage could not be effected. The repairs would be so extensive that it would be a new building, and, further, the repairs would bo a breach of the law.

Hislop stated that he had examined the building, and agreed with the other medical men.

I\. 11. Morton, City' Engineer, deposed that certain alterations! had been made to tho building. 'Witness went through between the north wall and the next building, and found the bottom plate rotted away for Bft., and in other places studs had rotted away at tho feet, no support being given to tho studs from the plate. The weather boarding was defective to some . extent. Tho joists rested directly on tho ground, so that tho building could not be drained and ventilated 'underneath without excavating sufficiently to get a current of air across the building in one direction.

' Several other witnesses voro also called. After the luncheon adjournment it was stated that a settlement had been arrived at between tho parties. Tho owners, having already rccentjy expended about £700 in repairs, and having undertaken to elfcct within three months the further works of a sanitary nature, which in the opinion of the Health Department and the Corporation Officials, will remedy tho defects complained of, and the owners having also undertaken to pull down the premises within tlireo years, an order was made by the Court accordingly by consent. Costs were arranged between tho parties. ' ' OTHER. CASES. Lewis Itodd, master mariner (Mr. Gray), sued the Westport Coal Company (Mr. Blair) for £44 ISs. 6d., balance alleged to be due by the Company to plaintiff for wages, etc.. in bringing tho barquentine Countess of Errol from Sydney, via Newcastle, to Wel'hngtou. After being partially heard, tho case was adjourned until to-dav. Finality was reached in tho'case, Samuel Dimdoro by bis next friend Wolf Dimdoro v. Alexhnder Dimdoro, a claim for £10 ss. for wages, etc. Judgment was given for plaintiff for, £5, and 1 costs'£l'l2s. '.Mr.v'Levi appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Kirkcaldio for defendant. ■

Francos Matilda Sliacklcton (Mr. Dunn) sued Edward Breen : (Mr. Wilford) for £54 for board and-lodging of two persons at tlio Salvation Army Maternity Home, Thompson Street. Alter a partial hearing a non-suit was granted on tlic ground that plaintiff, a member of the Salvation Army, was 'not the proper, .person to lay the information. Costs£3 155., were given against plaintiff.

RESERVED JUDGMENTS,

CLAIM FOR GOODS UNDER- BILL OH ' , SALE. > judg'iicnfc was delivered by Dr. A* M Arthur, S.M., in tho case Henry H. Holmden v. Fleming Hoss, a claim for £40 for, possession of certain goods manufactured by one Martinson, a builder for a houso in ' cpursp of construction by him for plaintiff. Koss claimed the goods as belonging to him under, a bill or sale executed iu his favour by Martinson. His.! Worship said he had - gone through a number of. cases bearing on tho question of bills of sales, and had como to tlio conclusion that, under all the circumstances of the case, •tlio defendant had not sufficiently described the goods covered under tho hill of sale. 'Defendant'said in the bill of sale "all tho Baid chattels hereinafter described." Tho schedule included many of the ordinary ai tides, or goods, to be found iu a. contractor s or joiner's shop, but nothing/to identify the particular articles claimed bv plaintiff. The bill of sale did not statu "all tho chattels belonging to the grantor in or about tho premises mentioned," but only -referred to them as " the chattels described in the schedule horouiidcr." The Court did not forget that'the last- sentence in the bill-of '' sale said, "all which said chattels arc now iu, upon or about the promises of the grantor situate in Little Tnranaki Street, and on tho promises of 'a house being constructed for Miv'Holmden at Central Terrace, Kelbunio, and boing erected by the grantor." It was a lrfatten of impossibility for anyone to identify these articles without oral evidence. The Court was quite aware, as the evidence showed, that so much timber and so many barrows, etc., might be identified as of that description, but how ' could anyone identify such timber and such barrows without some special mark, or unless the bill of sale clcarly showed that there were'no other timber or barrows of a similar description in the possession, of the grantor. For these and other reasons not necessary to enter into, in tho present casd. the Court liel dt-hat the bill of sale was void. As to tho question of damages there was a claim for the return of tho goods and £20 damages, or in tho alternative tlio sum of £40 damages. The defendant- had tal con the goods, and the contractor was i virtually, if not' actually, bankrupt. Plain-' t-ilf had had to carry on tho work at his own expense, and a considerable amount of this expense, had been due to the action of tho defendant. Under the circumstances of the case, His Worship considered that tho plain- , tiff was entitled to judgment for damages; in the sum of £17 10s., and costs £5 Ss. ■ Mr. Levvey, for 'defendant-, asked for leave to appeal, security for which was fixed ab £30. Mr. Bunny appeared for plaintiff. A LAND TRANSACTION. 'Reserved judgment- was given by Mr. Riddell, S.M., iu the case John R. Wallace v. Chas. Wm. Hodgson, a dispute in connection with a claim for tho return of £50, doposited in connection with a contract to purchase a farm near Dannevirke. The point at issuo was whether plaintiff understood before completing the sale that there was an encumbrance on the title in the shapo of a mortgage held in England. His Worship considered that plaintiff had boon informed of the mortgage on August 10, aud had continued arrangements to complete the purchase until August 2", when, through his solicitors, he wrote to defendant demanding tho return of the deposit aud cancellation of the agreement. The Court was of opinion that plaintiff's conduct after notice of tho mortgagee .amounted to acquiesccnce in tlio actual state of affairs, and his delay to exorcise his right to rescind promptly "after discovery stopped him from succeeding. Judgment would bo for defendant, with cosia £5 7s. Security for appeal was fixed in f.hn sum of £10 10s. Mr. Skerrett, K.C., up. pearod for plaintiff, and Mr. Myers for dofondant.