FEIBIG v. SUTTON

Feilding Star, Volume 8, Issue 2505, 19 March 1930, Page 8

FEIBIG v. SUTTON

CLAIM FOR £2lO CIVIL ACTION CONTINUED CASE FOR THE DEFENCE Further proceeding,, v.er e held in I lie S.M. Court this morning before Mr It. M. Watson, S.M.. in the- ease*. G. A. Felblg (Mr Ongley) v. A. 11. ,Sutton (Mr Cullinane) a claim for £2IG moneys alleged (o lie due for repairs to a building of which defendant hail a lease. Lengthy evidence bad b«en given on two previous sittings on behalf 1 f the plaintiff. When tile Court ojiened this morning. Mr Cullinane raised legal jioints regarding ilip claim, and applied for a non-suit. Speaking to liis application, Mr Cullinane pointed out that Mi's Haggitt, (lie previous owner of flip property' who had sold to Foibig. had admitted her to renew the floor and (lie roof. This was a collateral agreement made by Mrs Haggitt. Counsel further claimed t lint tlip except ions in the lease absolved definitely from the liabilities on which tlip claim was based. Decay in the building was due to old ag e wear and tear, and defective construction. Mi* Cullinane spoke, at length 011 his various submissions, and asked for a non-suit The Magistrate said the non-suit points would be reserved. Counsel them presented the evi< deuce for defendant-. Arthur Sutton, defendant, stated in 1*919 he negotiated with Mrs Haggitt, for a len.se, Mr Frank Haggitt, solicitor for 1 Mrs Mansori, Mrs HagSett’s mother, being present. Ir 1905 witness had taken, over the balance of the lease from Butler the previous occupier. In 1907 a brick building was added, and witness paid for installing the gas, and provided the globes. In 1917 lie t°°k over f further portion of the building. Ti 1919 he took over a. fresh lease fron Mrs Haggitt, she having become th. possessor of the property. When he took up the lease in 1919 Mrs Hnggitt was putting up some additions, and the arrangement was that he wa* to pay interest on th© cost of these additions. He was also- to pay interest on th© cost of puffing in a new floor. Mi’s Haggitt promised to have the new floor put in, and senj Wilkinson along to measure up foj th© work. But though witness was •charged interest on the estimated cost of this new floor, and had paid it for years, the floor was not put in. In 1919 the floor was very had am he considered it required a new one. The l>orer was in it, also dry rot. the wall was out of plumb, and foi some years later he had to give uj stocking linoleum because- the floor would not hold the rolls. He had written on several occasions about the floors and repairs Were carried out by Collins on one occasion and b\ Oarriga.n on another occasion. Pre vious to 1919 several attempts wer; by the Borough Engineer to stop th flood water, without success, but since 1922 file trouble wa.s overcoiiu by diverting the water in the stree, channels. The fall of the seefior was towards the corner of Munches ter and FergussOiti streets. Hilling the past 10 years he had received r letter from Mrs Haggitt suggesting; he should have the floor repaired, but in that period Mrs Haggitt had had repairs effected and paid for the work. He had made no promise t ( painf the building. The place wn* never painted in 25 years, the own er saving she coukl not afford it, H< had never been asked fo paint tin premises tjll Fiebig made the request When the new verandah was built, it had been proposed by the owner tc it with, an unsuitable wash, and h( wrote suggesting something else. Th. owner would Pot agree, and he got the painter to put on a. materia' which would last 10 years. The roo-i was occasionally repaired during liif occupancy since 1905, but generally the roof sagged. He thought the sagging was caused in one place through the joists being weakened with hole* when, the gas pipes were puf in. The roof had never been free from leaks It leaked in 1019, and leaked occasionally since, and he got his employees sometimes t° effect slight repairs. About 31 .veal's ago Mrs Hag gitt sent a. man t° paint the roof with tar. Mrs Haggitt was wrong in saying he had had a- skylight put in He had had one fa-ken out. Mrs Haggitt’s servant had had an accident while painting the ro>of and upset hi* pot, thus marking the wall. When Catrigan repaired the roof in 1918, he used some -old iron from the roof of a lean-to which he dismantled. After a few years he had had tr o,Ll blr with the verandah roof. fh e malthoid perishing. This let- water into the buildjiig ia.nd stained the ceiling and wall, hut water from, the verandah could not get under the building. The water getting inside the window* spoilt stock occasionally. Tlie roof leaked wliere the old iron had beer, puf on. -Regarding the down pipe, he had found that a new pipe put ili was too large for the drain into which it led. Oarrigan had bo-xed ir the down pipe, the casing being a fix ture. and it was nof possible to see I

if fk© down pipe was functioning or not. He had never had anything to do with! this downpipe. He had inspected th© roof recently and could nof see any new sheets of iron there. Inspectors had been, on the roof for Fiebig at about the time of his purchase, and witness’ staff had been on the roof during his tenancy frequently. Borne years ago- prior fo 1919 he had a. new' steel girder and castirbn uprights put up to strengthen t-h© , roof, and had paid about £IOO for this work. He had put the gas in the Brick building in 1907 at a. cost of £27, improvements to the building cost over £IOO. This was prior to--1919. Another downpipe in fke front of the building sometimes let water into the building. Decayed timber in the- building was caused by old age. He did not examine the building in 1919 and could not say what was the condition of the timber. If had decayed since and he gave old age as file cause. Witness gave evidence regarding the condition of the washhand basin, etc. He had put in the' electric light at his own expense, the owner saying she Could not afford it. In 1915 there was a fire in the premises and considerable alterations and renovations followed. The insurance people through Mrs Manson arranged for fhe renovations and in doing so the gas fittings were scrapped. Before he put in the elect lie light, AJi* Ongley had advised him how* to put it in so that he could take it out at the end of his lease. He followed that advice. Since then he had taken over the shop previously occupied by A. H. McLean and liad. paid Mac Lean for the electrical fittings . That was in 1917. The- shop front tvas altered in 1919, and lie fold Mrs Haggitt at fhe rime ;.,s he had put in fhe elect l ’'© light in the- other part k- would put the light in the wind/ows. This cost him £7l 19s. He to put a clause in the 1919 lease that Mrs Haggift would purchase the elec trie light, at- the expiry of the lease, but Airs Haggitt woiild not agree, as she thought he could sell t° the next tenant- He had not removed any gas fittings since 1919. Before Fiebig purchased the building witness had shown him and Geary over th© whole of if, pointing out its weak spots, and explaining particularly about the roof. He mentioned the floor, boards, upstairs, roof, need .for bracing, and said he (witness) thought it would cost £BOO to- £IOOO to puf it in order, and to this Mr Geary agreed. Witness discussed with Geary the sale, and pointed out he (witness) owned the electric fittings, and Geary and Fiebig agreed they would not offer t© sell these. He had later met Fiebig, who had written asking witness to meet him, and w'hen he (witness) explained the variious things Fiebig would only grunt '•v say he knew nothing about it. The Court then adjourned for lunch.