BUILDER FINED

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 77, Issue 7000, 8 December 1948, Page 6

BUILDER FINED

BREACHES OF BUILDING EMERGENCY REGULATIONS

MAGISTRATE’S SUGGESTION TO DEFENDANT

“On the form of the information, if your client takes the cases to the Supreme Court on an appeal, the convictions may be quashed,” said Mr S. L. Paterson to Mr P. S. Page in the Te Awamutu Court yesterday. The remark was made after the magistrate, had convicted and fined Gilbert Henry Fayne on two charges of breaches of the Building Emergency Regulations. ■ Mr Page appeared for the defendant, while Mr B. Malone (instructed by Mr K. L. Sandford, of Hamilton) proceeded on behalf of the Building Controller. A plea of guilty was entered.

The first charge related to proceeding with work otherwise than in accordance with a permit issued by the Te. Awamutu Borough Council by erecting the said dwelling otherwise than in accordance with the permit, by erecting the dwelling with an average foundation height of sft 9in, which wffs 3ft 9in in excess of the height approved by the regulations. The second charge related to the erection of floor space which was alleged to be 89 square, feet in excess of the area approved. Mr Malone detailed the result of measurements taken by the Building Controller’s inspector both in regards the foundation and floor space. As a result of the foundations being raised to sft 9in it gave extensive storage accommodation, and the. inspector stated that the excess cement used amounted to one and a-half tons. Mr Malone said that the defendant was a well-known local builder who had done a good job of work for the borough in carrying out the Transit Housing scheme in the. borough. Mr Page said that his client had given up his usual work, including the erection of his home, to do the Transit Housing work, and the work of erecting his pwn home was consequently done piecemeal. In regards the first charge, such was due to miscalculations due to the work being carried out under the conditions- outlined above. Mr Page then gave the measurements relative to both the foundation and floor space, and said that in regards the foundations, the site of the house was a sloping one. Mr Page said that the work of erecting the house began in May, 1947, and it was only recently that it had been inspected by the inspector for the Building Controller. Mr Page asked the magistrate to- take into consideration those facts when assessing the penalty. After making the remarks reported at the commencement of this report, the magistrate convicted and fined the defendant £25 on the first charge and £5O on the second. In each case the Court costs were 10s, while solicitors’ fees, £3 3s in the first case and £2 2s in the second, were allowed.