A LABOURER’S MISTAKE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21021, 9 May 1930, Page 9

A LABOURER’S MISTAKE.

WRONG HOUSE DEMOLISHED. OWNER’S CLAIM FOR -DAMAGES. (Special to Daily Times.) WELLINGTON, May 8, William Wilson (a wood merchant), and Edward Norman (labourer) were the defendants in the Magistrate’s Court to-day in a case in which William John Seatcr (merchant) claimed £250 for damage to a house, £3 3s architect’s fees for report on the damagej and £3O for lost of profits on the use of the house, which was partly demolished by Norman. The story was that Wilson had a house to wreck, and sent Norman' to it, hut Norman tackled the wrong house.' Wilson’s defence was that the damage did not take place in the course of Norman’s employment, and there was a suggestion that Norman did not act in good faith, but was vindictive against Wilson. Counsel said that there ■ had been a quarrel, Wilson rightly or wrongly having made the accusation that certain" wood sold from a yard had not been accounted for. William Wilson • said he ■ gave explicit instructions to 'Norman, 'and his impression was that Norman knew‘the house even before’he started out.- When ness asked Norman later about the affair Norman said, “ Oh, I don’t know. I saw this house empty, - and I got to it.” There had been numerous disputes between witness and Norman. . On behalf of Norman, it was submitted that what was done was bona fide within the scope of his employment. - Norman, in evidence, said he had followed the directions given to him to find the house. They were not very explicit. A paisser-by told him the house he stopped: at was the only empty one in the terrace. Both the front and back doors of tlfe house were ajar. In addition, the building was in a state of disrepair, fittings being scattered about the floor. The house was no better than other houses he had pulled down. He had pulled down better. After witness had been Working on it for two days, Wilson came along, said the building wak the wrong one, and “hit the roof,” “This is a very extraordinary case. The house happens to be the thirteenth, which is a proverbially unlucky number.” said the magistrate (Mr E. . Page) in giving judgment. There were many points om similarity between the two houses. He did not consider that negligence on the part -of Norman had. been established. Judgment would be entered for the plaintiff against both the defendants, with costs.