FEILDING COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume L, Issue 77, 26 February 1930, Page 2

FEILDING COURT

CLAIM FOR REPAIRS. (Special to “Standard.”) FEILDING, Feb. 26. The hearing of evidence was continued before Air R. AI. Watson S.M. in the Court yesterday in the case in which G. A. Ficbig, Ltd., (Mr Ongley and Mr Seddon) claimed from A. H. Sutton, Ltd. (Mr Cullinanc) tho sum of £248 6s 6d, for repairs, etc., carried out to tho building purchased by plaintiff from Mrs Haggitt, of Palmerston North, and allegedly caused by a breach of the lease held by defendant. Michael Carrigan, buildor and contractor, of Fcilding, said he had carried out certain repair work to tho building. One occasion was ten years ago. for Mrs Haggitt and the other was quite recently for Mr Feibig. He thought there had been repairs dono to the floor other than what ho had done, but when he inspected the floor for Air Ficbig it was in a shocking stato of repair. When ho had been working at tho building ten years previously tho floor seemed alright, but recently when ho examined it for Mr Fiebig it was broken through in several places. It would have meant reconstructing the whole floor as tho old ono had gone too far to ropair. This would cost in tho vicinity of £IOO. In witness’s opinion, the greater part of the damage was caused by want of vontilation under the floor, but thero was also a lot of storm water getting under the floor from tho roof owing to the drain being blocked. The exterior of the building also needed painting badly, two or three coats being necessary. Tho paint had been in quite good order when the building was handed over 10 years previously, tho fronts of tho shops down* stairs and the other ropair work having been newly painted. W T hen witness examined the verandah for Mr Ficbig he found that tho wa-ter had been coming thr%igh tho covering and staining the paint on the wall and the ceiling of the verandah. All this required re-painting and would cost about £9 for two coats. From its appearance witness did not think that the upper part of the building or the shop fronts had been painted during the 10 years’ interval. Owing to the non-paint-ing of tho building parts of the structure had rotted and needed, replacing. The roofing iron was in a pretty bad stato of repair, having a big sag in it caused by tho sinking of the foundations of tho building and tho removal of partitions in the building. The latter had been 'done before witness saw tho building ten years ago. Tho iron was rotten and leaky in places, Mr Fiebig having to put on several new sheets while the whole roof had to. be re-nailed. Tho building really required a new roof. Through the water coming through into Iho building from the leaky roof, and the want of spouting, damage to tho paint and woodwork had been caused. Witness also found several other repairs necessary. To Mr Cullinane, witness said that old age and weathor conditions would have played a part in the rotting of tho timber of tho building, together with a lack of paint. Witness would say that tho construction of the building was a first-class job, although in parts of it ordinary building timber had been used. This was just ordinary building timber and was not first-class. Other parts of the building were constructed of heart _ totara and matai. Witness had not inspected tho building before Air Fiebig bought it, but afterwards. This was in July last and he was able to see in what condition the floor, roof and walls wore. Witness had put in 1600 square feet of floor when he repaired the building and this would cost in the vicinity of £IOO for heart timber.

Witness said he was not aware that Mrs Haggitt had been negotiating for a new floor in 1919. It was not his business to examine the floor in 1919. About four years ago ho had done small repairs to the floor for Mrs Haggitt. The floor was very damp through storm water getting underneath —he had found out since that the water had come from a down pipe which was not functioning properly. The downpipe should have been sealed into the drain pipe. The troublo was that the drain was blocked at its exit and tho flow could not get away outside. Where the drain entered the street channel, it was too low —only half the mouth of the drain was showing in tho kerb.

To tho Magistrate': In wet weather, a good deal of storm water would come down the down-pipe and get under tho floor, and this would cause the rotting under the floor.

To Counsel: The water from the verandah would not get under the floor. He had noticed dry rot in the floor but no borer. Tho floor had been worn thin by people walking on it, but not worn through. In 1919 ho had painted part of the building—all the new work. He did not know when the old part was last painted. Witness could not say what the condition of the building was prior to 1919. At that period he had carried out certain alterations to it, but had paid no attention to tho rest of he building. Three coats of paint would not be effective in preserving the timber for more than four years, especially if it was ordinary building timber. Tho building had not been painted throughout during witness’ acquaintance with it. It would seem that if some of the timber had been painted between 1919 and when Mr Fiebig repaired it, it would not have rotted. There were still leaks in the roof, although witness had put seven or eight new sheets of iron on it and renailed the rest of it.

To tho Magistrate, witness said there was a lot of iron on the roof he could poke his finger through but it was not what he would call a job.

To Counsel, witness said thero was a lot of iron on tho roof that could be used again if repairs were being done. To tho Magistrate: Witness said tho roof was not worth painting. The malthoid on the verandah could not be looked upon as a permanent roofing.

Herbert Thomas Allen, painter, of Feeding, stated that he had painted the building by contract for Mr Ficbig. . The place badly needed painting, the boards being bare in places. His price for repainting tho old work inside was £45. Ho could not havfc made a satisfactory job by painting over the places where the electric light had been and the whole wall had to be done.

Examined by Mr Cullinane, witness said he had plugged about 45 holes in the building through which the electric light pipes had projected. The outsido of tho building had not been painted for about 20 years, in his opinion. N. C. Harding, town clerk, produced records showing that a permit for the installation of electric light had heen granted A. H. Sutton on June 3, 1915. J. E. Jackson, electricion, of Feilding, detailed the method by which the electric installation had been put in the building, tho usual system of conduit piping and other fixings being used. He inspected the building for Mr Fiebig and found that the installation had been removed, together with tho fixings. Ho estimated *it would cost about £32 to reinstal the system, this price not including shades and bulbs.

To-Mr Cullinane, witness said this figure allowed for the apparatus that had been left in tho building, the switchboard and the conduit piping and wire. This would probably be worth about £l7 10s. If the installation had been loft in, Mr Fiebig would would.probably have been put to considerable expense in altering it to suit the reconstruction of the building. This would most likely cost him as much as it did to put the new installation in.

This concluded the case for the plaintiff, the hearing of defendant’s evidence being adjourned till March 19.