ERECTION OF PARTY WALL

Taranaki Daily News, 15 March 1928, Page 6

ERECTION OF PARTY WALL

BUILDING PERMITS AND BY LAWS, By Telegrauli.—Press Association. Palmerston N., March 14. Mr. Justice Ostler has forwarded, to the Supremo Court his reasons for allowing the appeal of Keay, Woodville borough building inspector, against tha decision of the magistrate in refusing to convict Charles Forbes, builder, oi breaches of the borough building bylaws. Forbes is a builder, who had a contract to a building containing two shops with separate entrances and a party wall. Before commencing work he applied to Keay for a permit, producing the plan and specifications. They showed tho party wall as wooden, which is an infringement of the by-laws. Keay did not notice this, but asked Forbes if the plans and specifications were in accordance with the by-laws. Respondent honestly, but mistakenly, informid the inspector that they were. As a result the work wae authorised on condition that it v ae executed, according tq the building regulations. Keay did not observe the Infringement of by laws until respondent erected the framework of the party wall. .xS thereupon served Forbes with a notice to remove the wall as it was not in coalormity with the by-laws. Upon, respondent declining to do so Keay laid two informations against Him, one for erecting tLe wall; the other for failing tq remove it after due notice in writing. The magistrate dismissed both informations, stated His Honour, because ho felt himself embarrassed by the previous Supreme Court decision, and it seemed, but for that decision, he would have convicted. There was a distinction, however, in the present case. The scheme $f the by-laws throughout w .s to cast on the builder the duty of seeing that the plans and specifications were in accordance with the by-laws. The permit was not a certificate that the by-laws had been complied v.rithj on-the contrary it exnressly- warned til# builder that it could not ba held to sanction any deviation. His Honour said he could see nothing unreasonable in’ such a course. It wae the duty of architects and builders who prepared their own plans, etc., to make themselves familiar with the building bylaws.

His Honour held that the informations were wrongfully dismissed, and the cases were remitted to the magistrate to fix the penalties.