"COMPLETE BUNGLE."

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19626, 3 May 1927, Page 7

"COMPLETE BUNGLE."

CONSTRUCTION OF THEATHE. OPINION OF THE JUDGE. SUGGESTION FOR AGREEMENT. Tho claim by H. Oakley Browne, lessee of th«> Delta Theatre. New Lynn (Mr. Hall Skelton}, vor £373 damages against George Vincent, Mullenger (Mr. Cocker), for alleged failure to complete a contract to render the theatre building tenable and weather-proof, was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Stringer. John Grayden, 'contracting builder, said he. inspected the premises iast September. It was raining heavily at the time and water was streaming down the walls of tho shop on tho ground floor. Card board boxes wore sodden and ; had to be removed. Various receptacles were being used to catch rainwater in tho living rooms, where wall-paper had peeled off as a result of the wet. One part of the ceiling had sagged in, and was holding water to a depth of about an inch. The walls of the theatre itself were very wet, and laree cracks had occurred between several posts, making it almost, possible to see. through. It would cost £230 to replace the walls in a waterproof condition, while reconditioning inside would cost a further £250. Defendant gave lengthy evidence concerning the drawing up of the contract and erection of the building. In reply to Mr. Skelton, defendant said a Miss Mitchell had actually contracted to carry out the building work. She bad since taken out a writ against him for recovery of money in connection with tho contract. His Honor: Between the two of them they seem to have made a very complete* bungle. " Mr. Skelton; It was a case of frenzied finance, I think. "I would like to say, first of all, that] I do not think in my experience I havei come across such a very sloveuly arrange- i ment as seems to have been made in re* i gard to tho building of this theatre,'* ' His Honor said, in summing up. The specifications were not signed, and it was t not clear whether they referred to the j theatre in question or not. It was :stir- j prising that a contract involving such a largo sum could he taken out in such a j manner. It appeared plain there was a j collateral agreement which, however, did ! not affect the terms of the lease. -Pe- ! fondant was liablo for damages, but the amount was difficult to determine. A reasonable suggestion seemed to be that defendant should undertake to make the building waterproof, and that the cost > should ha charged against the rent. Mr. Skelton: That is exactly what was 1 offered. The case was adjourned for a week, the ! Judge expressing the hope that aome agreement would bo reached between tho parties with a knowledge of his opinion on the question. , i