OLD CITY BUILDING.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1124, 11 May 1911, Page 2

OLD CITY BUILDING.

MUST IT COME DOWN? OWNER APPEALS TO THE COURT. CITY COUNCIL'S CASE. An old citj building was the subject of dispute, in a case before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., in (he Magistrate's; Court yesterday, when James Doyle, sanitary inspector, proceeded aeainst Hamilton Giliiicr, tattler, of Wellington, for failing to comply with a notice to pull down a condemned building, known as Wnrnoek and Adkin's, 205 Lambton Quay. The city solicitor (Mr. .1. O'Shea), with him Mr. T. Neave, appeared for the plaintiff corporation, while Mr. T. "W. Hislop conducted defendant's case. Mr. O'Shea stated that the building had been condemned three years ago, and, when the case came before the Court, it had been arranged that certain repairs should then be carried out to fix the question for that time, defendant undertaking to pull down tho building in three years. Mr. Rislop objected that this had nothing to do with the present proceedings. Mr. O'Shea contended that the agreement to pull down was an admission that the building was unfit for occupation. His Worship upheld Mr. Hislop's objection.

Continuing, Mr.. O'Shea said that notics fiad been served on defendant under

Section 201 of the Municipal Corporations Act. Dr. i'rengley had certified that the building was Unfit for occupation, and a search of the' title showed that Mr. Ham-

ilton Gilmer was the registered owner. A notice had been served on him on March 20, requiring him to pull down the build-

ing within y0 days. The notice had not been complied with, and so the present proceedings had been taken under paragraph 2 of the twelfth schedule of the Municipal Corporations Act. Such repairs as might Ik necessary to place the building in a satisfactory condition were not .permitted by the bylaws, as the building was witliin tlie brick area. Counsel intimated that all

his witnesses won? not present that day, and id an adjournment would be necessary after certain evidence had been tendered.

Mr. Hislop objected to calling any of his own side's witnesses until plaintiff's case had closed. It was, therefore, decided to adjourn as soon as Mr. O'Shea had called such of his witnesses as wero present.

Dr. J. P. Frengley, District Health Officer, described the condition of the building. Surface-water gained access be-

neath the floors, and caused rotting and general dampness. In the north wall,

the plates and Studs were badly "gone" in parts. There was evidence of "dry rot" in the building, which was also infested with rats. - There was inadequate ventilation beneath the floors, which were too close- to the ground, and in wet weather the building had a musty smell. Viewed from Wellington Terrace, the walls appeared to be out of plumb, and tho floors at the back portion of tho upper building were uneven. To Mr. Hislop: He had soon certain specifications for repairs which had been prepared by Mr. Chatiield, but lie was not prepared to say that the.w would place- the building in a satisfactory condition.

Asked wliy he had allowed the building to continue'in an insanitary condition for throe years, witness replied that it had been agreed that repairs were to be effected.

Mr. Hislop: You allowed the unfortunate employees to suffer, for threo years?— "lu vietv'iif tho ajfresimtnt tu repair and later to rebuild."

Mr. Hislop: Did you, or did you not? -"I did."

Mr. Hislop: Did tho owners not agree to do all that they were asked by tlie City Eneincer to do?—" They did."

Mr. Hislop: Did you ask tho City Engineer to call on them to remedy tlie trouble?—"l did not."

In further cross-examination, witness said that what was wanted in the back uf tin; building was reconstruction. Ee was not prepared to swear that Mr. Chatfield's improvement .scheme would not remedy the trouble. In condemning the building (assessed by the Government Valuer'at £KW) he was only, doing his duty. Thy building, in its present condition, would affect the health of employees. He had not said that the buildins was old and decrepit, or that it would fall down, and he did not third: that it was likely to fall down.

Dr. Hector, who had examined the building on two occasions, gave it as his opinion that the structure was unfit for occupation, and injurious to the health of the employees.

Dr. Mathew Holmes gave evidence on similar lines. The floor was damp in twenty place?, and the general condition of the building was bad. W. H. Bennett, contractor, who made an examination of the building, had come to the conclusion that it had been built in sections. Parts of it that had been renewed were in good order, but parts of tho floor were badly decayed. The walls, -though infected with "borer," were in a fair state of preservation excepting the north wall, whore the studs and plates had rotted away. Tho joists and sleepers, carrying part of the floor, were buried, and the back yard was on a level with th-a floor. The foundation had a natural fall to Lanibton Quay, but had been cut out in steps. Thus the front was lower than the back, and this made the floor damp. There was no ventilation or drainage under the floor, and so soakago from the high ground at tho back found its way underneath. The manner in which tho building had been added to made a labyrinth of passages—a menace to safety in case of fire".

To Mr. Hislop: The building could be repaired and put in a sanitary condition. James Nicholson, building " contractor, who had examined the building with tho previous witness, agreed with the lalter as toils condition; It could, however, be put into satisfactory condition for perhsns £M or JSOO.

John Eichard Palmer, Town Clerk, was called to give, evidence as to certain complaints Hint had been received, but Mr. lli&lop objected, and his Worship upheld the objection. ■

William H. Morton, City Engineer, after making two examinations of the building, gave it as his opinion that it was unfit for occupation. One wall was leaning fully six inches out of plumb, tlie staircase leading to the first floor was in a rotten condition, and ths studs and plates of the north wall had rotted away It would not be safe to load the first floor with any considerable weight of merchandise or crowd of people. Tho purpose (or which the building was to bo used Had a good deal to do with the question as to whether it should bo condemned As a drapery establishment, he considered that tho building was quite unfitted to servo its purpose. In one place, in tho north wall, where tho studs worn sound, they wero built on rough brickwork consisting of small brickbats which witness was able to pull out with his hands without any difficulty Witness would not recommend the Ci'ty Council to allow repairs. If, however the council agreed to allow such, witness considered that the carrying out of Mr Ghatfield's specifications would be satisfactory as far as they went, but would not go far enough. Cross-examined by Mr. Hislop, witness stated that he felt perfectly certain that tho water which flooded Lanibton Quav some little time back was not up to (he top of the joists in the front of tho building, ami that the wnver had not reached the back of the building. It was perfectly feasible to ventilate underneath the present building. When the ea.=t! was previously before the Court, certain things had been arranged to be done. oi:n of which wns dealing with stormwater. As a result of that, the flojr of the building was not nearly so bod now as it had been then. Witness would not think of condemning a buildim,' simply because it had not an nsphalt coating underneath the door. As regarded tho flondini: oi the street tho City Council had taken stops to prevent it as fur »<i possible anil now there was practically no chnnr.o of the water rising to tho 'floors of the buildings. Answering a question regarding the fire that occurred in the building, ivitiiess slated that since (lie fire, no steps had been taken by his Department to have the fire esciip'es nf tho building improved. This wn.<: because the hnildini; lind been looked upon us condemned. • There had been a groat many cases in Mr. Hislop's time as Mayor, where buildings- had benn condemned, but structural ajfpratious had boon accepted, and the buildings =-tood till this day. Re-examined by Mr t O'Shea, witness

said that, if the matter came before tho council again, he would not recommend that the by-law be dispensed with. His Worship ruled that this was not evidence, and also ruled that any report made by Mr. Morton to the council could not be considered in connection with the cas<>. This concluded the evidence that Mr. O'Shea was ready to lead, and further hearing was adjourned until Friday morning.