MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22709, 23 October 1935, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Tuesday, October 21. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES Judgment by default was given for plaintiffs in the following cases:—W. Penrose and Co. v. H. M'Gavock, claim £ll 2s 3d, for goods supplied, with costs (£2 14s) ; Hogg and Co., Ltd., v. Hugh M'Lean (Motnona), claim £l9 7s, for goods supplied, with costs (10s); W. H. Jackson and Co. v. Thomas Crozier (Mosgiel), claim £37 19s 7d, for goods supplied, with costs (£4 Is Gd). JUDGMENT SUMMONS James Ernest Port was proceeded against by Robert Knovvles on a judgment summons, claiming the sum of £9 7s 6d.—After the judgment debtor had given evidence regarding his financial position the magistrate intimated that lie would not make an order. BREACH OF A claim for damages, amounting to £IOO, was made by George Fulton Youngson against Donald Thomson, a builder, of St. Leonards, the plaintiff alleging breaches of contract in connection with the building of a house in Roslyn. It was claimed that the house was unmarketable, or, in any event, worth far less than the contract price paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. — Mr A. N. Haggitt appeared for the plaintiff and Mr E. J. Anderson for the defendant. The statement of claim set out that in 1930 the defendant contracted to build a house for the plaintiff in accordance with certain plans and specifications. The work was commenced about the month of March of that year, and the plaintiff took possession in the following September. The defendant, it was claimed, had failed ,to comply with a specification in connection with the building of a parapet wall, and, instead of using best hardburnt bricks, had used bricks of very inferior quality both in the parapet and in the brick fence and piers fronting the property. In addition, the boundary wall was out of plumb as a result of movement due to faulty workmanship on the part of the defendant. In consequence of the alleged breaches of contract the residence was not marketable, or at least not worth the contract price, and the plaintiff had been put to considerable trouble, inconvenience, and expense in effecting repairs.— The plaintiff, in evidence, said that the house appeared to be satisfactory when lip went into it at first, but after a few months some of the bricks of a parapet wall against which the house was built began to crumble. The defendant was called in and lie maintained that the wall was all right. Eventually, the bricklayer replaced some of the crumbling bricks and the wall was treated with a cement wash. This did not make a lasting improvement, however, as other bricks crumbled like chalk and a mass of weeds grew on the side of the wall. Witness had written to Thomson, but had received no reply. The position had since got worse, and the wall had got out of plumb, and had fallen away from the house at the top, leaving a gap. — Sarah Youngson, mother of the previous witness, corroborated the plaintiff's evidence. —Thomas William Dove, manager of Shiel's brickworks at Fairfield, detailed the way in which bricks were supplied for the job.—John M'Cormack, a bricklayer, and Henry Mandeno, an architect, also gave evidence. —Mr Anderson said that this was an exceptionally stale claim. It would be shown .that the State Advances Department inspector, who was the person most concerned from the financial aspect, was quite satisfied with the job. It seemed to be a belated claim by ultra-fastidious people.— Donald Thomson, the defendant, gave evidence and denied that there were any faulty bricks used. —William Henry Hall, who was the bricklayer on the job, maintained that only first-class bricks were used. —James Vincent Whelan, a bricklayer, and George Hodgson, a builder, also gave evidence. —His Worship said that the builder's responsibility was to carry out his work in accordance with the plans and specifications provided. He was satisfied that a good number of inferior bricks had been used, despite the provision in the specifications that only first-class bricks should be used. It appeared to him that this had been done wilfully and deliberately, and the plaintiff was entitled to his full measure of damages. This would entail the replacing of the parapet and the inferior bricks elsewhere. Judgment would be given for £27 14s, with court costs (£1 17s), solicitor's fee (£4 3s) and witnesses' expenses (£4 9s).