DOORS THAT SHRUNK.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 April 1926, Page 2

DOORS THAT SHRUNK.

CLAIM AGAINST MAKER UPHELD. A case presenting some interesting points was heard at the Inglewood Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when a claim was made by Walter* Codd, a builder and cabinet-maker, against Lewis Butler for the sum of £8 Is 6d, the price of work done by Codd for Butler. On the grounds that the work was defective, in that nine out of ten doors supplied by plaintiff had shrunk. Butler counter-claimed for £l3 10s. After hearing the evidence and inspecting one of the doors, the magistrate (Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M.) said that he considered the work was not efficient, and awarded the defendant, Butler, a sum of £8 Is 6d on the counter-claim. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs. Plaintiff was represented by Mr. H. G. Thomson and defendant by Mr. W. 11. Armstrong. Mr. Thomson explained that the doors were supplied in 1921 as part of an order for which defendant paid in cash £137 7s. Subsequently he ordered further joinery at a cost of £8 Is Cd. This was the amount that was being claimed. It was not until after he had paid for the doors that the shrinkage became apparent, said defendant. He complained to Codd, but could obtain no redress, and secured further joinery from him. Witness later told Codd that he did not intend to pay for the subsequent order, remarking that the sooner he sued him the better. . Nothing was heard of the amount again until a few months ago, when the present action was started. In the meantime defendant thought that Codd had wiped out the amount as redress for the doors.

Defendant produced one of the doors in court, and pointed out to the magistrate that the frame had shrunk oneeighth to a quarter of an inch, while the panels, which were all loose, could be moved sufficiently to give a clear space and view through the door. Walter Codd, the plaintiff in the action, stated that he was a builder of experience, having been 30 years a builder, and a joiner for 13 years. He had pointed out to defendant that there was no end to shrinkage in 0.8. doors,

and emphasised the advisability of using heart timber. Ordinary building timber had been used as a matter ..of economy to defendant. The trade would never guarantee 0.8. joinery. The timber used had been in his yard for two years, and 0.8. timber three years seasoned was not good enough for doors. Frank Brown, timber merchant, gave evidence as to the difficulty five years ago in procuring heart and well-seasoned timber, with the result that some factories began making joinery with 0.8. The door produced, he would say, was a well-made door, though the exceptional shrinkage showed that the timber was not properly seasoned. No factories guaranteed 0.8. work, but generally endeavoured to use well-seasoned timber. There were some interesting points about the case, said the magistrate, but the point at issue was whether the work done by Codd had been efficient. He considered the door produced was not efficient, and he did not think it competent for a joiner to make a door with timber that would shrink as much as that door had unless his client had been given to understand clearly what might occur. As to the cost of putting the doors into good order, he thought it mighi be done at a less cost than claimed, therefore judgment would be given for the defendant for £8 Is 6d, each party to pay its own costs.