BUILDING OF STEPS

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 62, 10 September 1937, Page 15

BUILDING OF STEPS

NORMANDALE SCHOOL

CLAIM FOR PAYMENT

Work done in the grounds of the Normandale School was the subject of a civil action in the Lower Hutt Court yesterday, before Mr. H. P. Lawry, S.M., when H. J. Harris, bricklayer, of Normandale, claimed £15 5s lOd from H. G. Macaulay, the secretary of the Normandale School Committee.

Mr. N. T. Gillespie appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. Mitchell for the defendant.

The statement of claim set out that on or about January 23 the defendant instructed the plaintiff to buiid brick steps and a concrete landing in the school grounds ■at Normandale. The plaintiff carried out the work and rendered to the defendant an account for £15 5s lOd, made up as follows:— Bricks, cement, sand, shingle, £5 5s lOd; 72 hours' work dene by plaintiff at 2s 6d an hour, £9; 10 hours' work done by an assistant at 2s an hour, £1:

Mr. Gillespie said that when the defendant saw the plaintiff he stressed that the work must be done cheaply. Harris accepted the contract and commenced the work of building the steps on January 27. He himself put in 72 hours' work on the job and employed an assistant for. a day. Satisfaction was expressed with the work. On February 12 Harris went to a meeting of the school committee, at-which Macaulay repeated a statement he had made privately that the committee was short of funds and did not know how they were going to pay him. No complaint was made about the quality of the work. They said that they would pay him when they got some money. A week later the plaintiff attended another meeting, and found that some damage had been done, to the steps. The concrete was never less than an inch thicic anywhere, and would have stood had it been subjected to reasonable wear. Harris refused an offer of £5 for the work.

Henry John Harris gave evidence along the lines indicated by Mr. Gillespie. He said that no price was mentioned. The committee had done some work on the path, but it was most unsuccessful.

In reply to a question, witness said that when he took over there was some boxing on the job, 1J bags of cement, and about half a yard of shingle.

CONTRACT ADMITTED,

Mr. Mitchell stated that the committee admitted there was a contract, but it was only for steps. The committee had put in two days' work forming a path, and had built the landings. The committee agreed to pay for the material and labour in building the steps. The job was not seen in the course of construction. When it was completed it was found that the plaintiff had repeated the work already done by the committee and covered the concrete landings, in some cases to a depth of Bin. There'was a difference in height between the landings. The concrete was not up to requirements. The committee maintained that two yards of material, six bags of cement, and three days' labour, amounting in all to £5, were all that was required by the contractor.

Hector Gordon Macaulay said that the concrete broke easily under the impact of a heel.

Godfrey Rowland Powell, building inspector for the Wellington Education Board, said that he inspected the path on February 16. The portion examined was very unsatisfactory. The surface was broken and crumbling. The sand

and cement in some cases was only two inches thick and of poor quality. An expenditure of £5 would be necessary to put the path in order.

Mr. Lawry said that no specified price Was mentioned. The committee showed a grave lack of interest in the work in allowing it to proceed without inspection. There was no evidence about a difference in height between the landings. One exception to the work of the plaintiff concerned the nature of the'mix. Although he was told to do a cheap job, he also had to do a job of practical utility. It appeared that he made too lean a mixture which did not hold sufficiently well. However, he could not hold him totally responsible for all the defects. If the committee members had displayed the interest they would show in work done in their own homes they would not have left the plaintiff alone from start to finish.

Mr. Lawry gave judgment for the plaintiff for £13 and costs.