FIEBIG v. SUTTON

Feilding Star, Volume 8, Issue 2506, 20 March 1930, Page 7

FIEBIG v. SUTTON

CIVIL ACTION FOR £246 CONCLUSION Of EVIDENCE JUDGMENT RESERVED Evidence for the defendant in the civil action, Fiebig (Mr Ongley) v, Sutton (Mr Cullinane) was concluded yesterday afternoon. The claim was for £240 for repairs to the building previously leased by Sutton and which plaintiff had purchased, plaintiff claiming that defendant was liable for certain repairs under the terms of the lease. Tli e hearing of evidence had occupied three Court days. Defendant had paid £8 into Court and claimed that this sum met ail his liability. Under cross-examination by Mr Ongley, defendant stated the gas was iu the building in 1905 and when the addition was made b e had to have the gas installed in it. In 1915 after tli e Are Mrs Manson would not pay the cost of re-installing the gas nor for the electric light and he paid for the installation. Some of the gus fittings were removed with Mrs Manson’s consent after the fire. In 1919 when covenanting for th e new lease he puid £7l 19s to have electric fittings, put in, those including reflectors. He could not remember the details. lie took out tli e fittings the day before l*e left the premises. Thy 1919 lease was signed in 1921 after the improvements had been carried out, a preliminary agreement having been made. When signing th e lease in 1921 ho did not understand li e "'ns undertaking to put the building in anything more than the state- of repair it was in. In 1919 the building was repaintetd partly and improvements made and he was charged interest on tli e cost of these improvements. These included the new shop front, and' altogether Mrs Haggitt spent £llOO in repairs, etc., defendant paying extra rent as interest on this amount. Mrs Haggitt had also had some paining done, wliicch she was entitled to do whether the alterations wer e mad e or not, and on this defendant wa s given allowance. Since 1921 som e plumbing work had beon done, at Mrs Haggitt’s expense, and defendant had himself made some repairs to tli 0 floor. Since 1921 the whole of tli-o expenditure which h e had incurred in repairs was under £l, plus cost of material which would be under £l. These repairs were to the floor only. The roof had been leaking in 1905 and ever since at intervals. H e had told Mr s Haggitt later on it was leaking, though he could not say definitely whether the roof was in a leaky condition ut the time lie signed th e lease. Once since 1919 Mrs Haggitt hud had repairs done to the roof, though it had been leaking continually. When Mrs Haggitt’s servant was painting the roof the spouting cam e down and th e .tar was spilt und marked the wall. Replying to questions regarding the painting, witness said he had asked both Mrs Manson and Mrs Haggitt to have the place repainted, and they both said th e place was not worth it.

Thomas Collins, builder a yd contractor, stated he had inspected tlie property in August ljst, an'# found tlie floor in a shaky condition, evidently pretty bad underneath. Jju March, 1925, he carried out some repairs to tli e floor, for which he was paid £lO. Mrs Haggitt paid for this. Tlie floor was then in a bad state, being rotten underneath. In August of 1929 tii e floor was rotten tlie joists, had the dry rot and had no substance in them. Want of air -was the eauso of that, lie had not seen any ventilators, and it wa s certainly a strucural defect not to have them. Ordinary building matai was poor stuff for flooring, not nearly as serviceable as rimu. He considered the timber from this district—Apiti—much bettor tiian that from th e Hunterville district. He had prepared an estimate for plugging holes. and. painting where fittings had been taken ou\ liis price was £2 15s. Tlie i patches wher e the fittings had been taken out could be painted over to match with th e rest of th e wall. He had examined (he roof and found it in a deplorable condition. Some sheets of iron wer e rusted and some bent, this latter through people walking on it. He had estimated three new sheets of-iron on tlie lean-to to make that roof rainproof. In several places on tlie main roof tile iron had rusted through, the cause old age and exposure. Old ag 0 had also caused the rotting of (lie spouting. He considered £IOO too much to charge for painting the building outside and inside. To Mr Ongley: ll e had not measured up the building, but still said

£IOO was too much. The outside had not been painted for a long time and this was not fair if it was desired to preserve th e building. In one place tlie black stuff which had been put on tlie roof bud run down tl>:> wall. The quickest way to eause floor to fall was to shut out the air, equally had was to allow stagnant water to lie under it and damp the timbers.

lie-examined by Mr Cullinane, witness said the timber on the outside had decayed for want of paint and because 0'177 timber had been used in tlie first place. Tlie maltlioid roof wa 3 not nearly as good when laid flat than with a good slant. It would not lust on a flat roof. He would not us e maltlioid for flashing —it would be hopeless. It was certainly a defect in this building if maltlioid were used for flashing. George Wilkinson, carpenter, stated lie had inspected Sutton’s shop in September last and found certain defects in tlie floor, caused ill if is opinion partly because of tlie want of ventilation and partly because tlie place was built o'ti an old creek. He Had! examined tlie rotof and found where some sheets of iron were damaged through peoj.de walking on it. and other places rusted. Some timbers were decayed for want <>f paint. These, timbers had once been painted, but this paint had dried out, the ruin and file weather had got into the timber and! rotted it. He considered £ 1 a fair estimate for plugging the holes ill the walla and ceilings where e’ectric fittings had been taken out. He had examined the spouting and found it broken in one place where it appeared a- painter had had an aecidant, for paint was spilt down the wall. Tlio spouting was not rusted. He had seen the downpipe and found it was not connected with the earjnenware pipe to which it led the water. He would not use malthoid for flashing, as it '■odd mjt be satisfactory. He had looked at the roof and found the nails generally loose. Tlie roof was sarked, though it was not the custom now to use sarking. Alan Oleland, painter, stated he had inspected Sutton’s shop some months ago and gave a price few painting inside one shop. Tljat was some tihie before Christmas. He had seen some places wheire patches had been left after plugs had been taken out. As a colourist he could pain* over rthese patches and make them so they oul dnot be an eyesore. To Mr Ongley: He l:|ad mpde an estimate for two coats of paint a>tlie inside, because that was wl.at he was asked to do-. He considered one coat would have been stifßclen*.

Inries Douglas Funnel!, electrician, stated last July lie was instructed to take out electrical apparatus from Sutton’s shop. He had removed tamps, shades and pendants from windows and bottom and upper flotors, ntso switches and plugs of heat points, and blocks of same whichhad been screwed to the wall. He had taken down the conduit which was attached to the ceiling and walls by saddle and srews. He had left about 12 light points on the upper floor, and also the switch hoards. The lamps and- shades wore fixed in the ordinary way, and the conducts to tne ceilings and walls by saddle and screws. There were holes in the walls where tlie conduits were taken from one rotfm to another. There were about four holes in tlie walls and ceilings where the coinl urf s were removed. He had, done no damage to the building in removing. To Mr Ongley : He would he very much surprised to- hear he had left 49 holes. After he had taken out some conduit it- was told to stop, so lie took no more out. He had left no lights in the building, hut the switchboards were not taken down. Upstairs lio had left the points—that is, the wiring to the coaling, removing everything visible in the room. To put the electrical fittings back as lie found them would cost £l6 or £l7. Richard Bowler stated He came to Feilding 56, years ago, when lie was lo years old. The section where Fiebig’s building now stands was a swamp in the early days and a creek ran through the spot. It was just a small creek four or five feet wide and, a coup I©, 1 ©, of Geet deep in places. It was necessary' to fascine the road to get tfcyi trafhc over. He remembered the building being put up, but ho could not say in what .year it was erected.

George Bartholomew- stated he had timber mills in this district since 1593. lie knew the -shop at the corner of Manchester and Fergusson streets, Bartholomew Bros. having supplied the timber for it about 1894 or 1895. One thing re remembered particularly about tlie deal was that the firm was never paid for the timber. The timber had come from the Hunterville district and was not so good as the local timber. His impression was that it was a jerry built place—a cheap iob. It was a rare tiling in those days to get an order for jieart timber, orders being mostly for o.b. The o.b. in those days was better than the o.b. of to-day. It was a reasonable expectation for the timber used in that building to last about 25 years, that is the timber used in the foundation. If the timber were shut off from the air or allow-

ed to become water-logged, it would not last nearly so long. Ralph Heald stated lie lived -n Feilding for 50 years and knew the site of the building before the buiiding was on it. It was a -swamp and creek bed. In the corner section ther was a hole seven feet deep generally filled with water. The creek came out about in the corner of the street. A good deal of filling was done before the building was erected. It was a cheaply built structure, the tmiber was lighter than it should have been, and it was built according to the best method. Years ago he worked on the roof trying to stop leaks, and found this impossible, and told Mrs Manson the roof should be raised and a better pitch given to it. Mrs Manson would not agree to have- this done, so he gave up the job. He had found the floor damaged with dry rot and no ventilators provided. Damp had also affected it. It was structurally defective. Thomas Henry Hope, plumber, repaired leaks in the roof in 1914 and again in 1920, and in June last he inspected it for Mr Fiebig. He made temporary repairs to tlie roof. It was a bad roof—too flat, badly constructed in the first place. When he examined it last year it was in a faulty state through fair wear and tear. He had told Fiebig the only way to make the roof satisfactory was to recover it with iron. To the Bench: In 1920 it was n fair repair with no rust. To Mr Ongley: The roof was much worse now than it was in 1920. To put it back in similar - repair would cost less than £lO though he would not give a definite estimate. Re-examined, witness said he did not examine the whole riif in 1920. This’ concluded the evidence for the defendant. Mr Cullinane addressed the Court on the evidence, Mr Ongley replying and reviewing the evidence and referring to the law and cases on the matter. The Magistrate intimated the Court would take time to consider the evidence.