TO PAY FOR PLUMBING WORK

Taranaki Daily News, 12 July 1929, Page 9

TO PAY FOR PLUMBING WORK

Landlord disputes authority. SAID INSTRUCTIONS EXCEEDED. Conte a ling that lie had not authorised tho work, J. G. Stronge, Warca, disputed a claim for £l9 made by Smart Bros., Lid., in the New Plymouth Court yesterday for plumbing done and materials suuplied. 011 a farm at Cowling Road. Westown. After hearing the evi--donee, Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., gave judgment for Smart Bros., but did not allow them costs. .in ui-gng the justice of the -claim, ME J. 11. Sheat said that in July, 1927, Stronge called. on Smart Bros, and gave instructions to do certain work necessary to make the water supply system effective. Stronge said the pipe from ouo of the tanks was leaking and no water was being obtained in the house, the closet was not flushing and water had

to be brought from the washhouse to the closet. Il<i' mentioned, too, that there L.weia .several other things to bo done amPtliat the tenant (Flyger) would point these out. Stronge was not very definite and the question of cost was jdot discussed. When Herbert Smart went to the farm with his workmen he found the water supply depended on a well worked iby a windmill. The tank by the windmill was rusted through and was useless and, in the first -place, it was necessary to replace it, This was one of the items in dispute. There was no water in the concrete tank or house tank and Smart discovered it was useless, therefore, for him to do tire minor repairs until he renewed the 1000-gallon tank at the windmill. Further items claimed for were the renewal of a broken windmill rod, the mending of some pipes leading to the house, and for field pipes to carry the overflow away from the septic tank across tho paddock. Flyger would say there was a large collection of drainage matter under the house. To overcome this fault .Smart had been instructed by Strongo to repair the waste pipe, but ho found the only method was to lay field pipes as he did. It was quite clear, continued counsel, that .Strongo authorised some work and that ho did not state definitely what was required. It was maintained that what had been done was no more than what was necessary to make the water supply usable. Smart had found tho place in such a state that if, he had Informed the health authorities (Stronge would have been compelled to have the work done. He had wondered, in fact, why the authorities had not moved in jthe matter before. Mr. ‘C. 11. Croker said that in view ©f the nature of the evidence given by Colin Smart, Herbert Smart and 11. M. Flyger, he would ask for a non-suit. Tiie .fact was that Stronge called at Smart Bro>s.' office and saw their agent, Colin Smart, Ho gave him definite, instructions to do one or two things and these were written in a book. These were very clear, counsel contended. Mr. (Sheat had very carefully refrained from ask-, ing Flyger tho terms of his tenancy. There was no principle in law under which a tenant could be relieved of his liabilities as a lessor merely becausetho repairs were urgently needed. What did it matter to the landlord fi the health .authorities might object '-fo tior.s about the place? Mr. ■ Croker quoted authority to show that unless it was expressly covenanted, the landlord was under no liability to repair. Stronge had paid 30s into court, a, sum he considered adequate remnnera- . tion for the work for which instructions were given. The magistrate did not agree with Mr. Croker on the non-suit point. Ho Baid that according to the written note of instructions. .Smart was to ‘‘connect the water from tho washhouse to the water closet cistern.'' How he was to connect the water without having the water he did not see. He thought there had been a contract. Stronge said the overflow of the house tank .went to the concrete tank on the hill. The 1009 gallon tank did not replace the house tank. The concrete tank would hold 2700 gallons and there was no need to do what Smart Bros, had done if tho tank .were .allowed to fill with rain water. There was a. crock on tho farm. If they wanted water for tho house they could have carried it from tho well for a few days until it rained. Flyger had never asked him fcw dp any '6l the things in question; He did net see him till he had been on the phico nine months. Tie visited the farm amt saw Mrs. Flyger just before the work .was done. If Smart had carried out his instructions it would have given the Fiygers water as soon as rain fell. To Mr. Sheat: Flyger had intended to take a lease. A lease was prepared by a solicitor but was never signed. He told (loliu Smart ho .was not prepared to spend very much on the place. The magistrate said Stronge gave instructions to connect-the water and ho should pay. He should have made himself plainer if he meant otherwise. There was undoubtedly a contract, although there was some indefiniteness. As he considered tho Smarts should not have waited so long to bring the action ho would not allow costs.