DEMOLITION ORDER ASKED

Taranaki Daily News, 13 July 1929, Page 7

DEMOLITION ORDER ASKED

OLD BUILDINGS RE-ERECTED BRANSGROVE DECISION RESERVED. I ' » CASE FOR THE DEFENCE STATED. Whether a building used as a dwelling at the corner of the Tarahua and Junction Roads should be demolished was a question on which Air. R. VV. Tate, S.M., reserved his decision in New Plymouth yesterday. “It would be reasonable for me to look through the evidence again before I decide whether I want to see the place,” he said. The Taranaki County Council applied'for an order under the Health Act of 1920 against the owner, William Captain Bransgrove. The case was partly heard recently and the case for the council was closed after evidence had been given by Frank Amoore, F. Whittaker and A. L. Roberts alleging that the building was not in a. state fit for habitation and was insanitary. In opening the case for the defence, Air. C. H. Weston said his first point was that Bransgrove would say Inspector Day had made no kind of suggestion about condemning the place. In this connection it was submitted that Bransgrove’s word should carry as much weight as Inspector Day’s because the latter was a busy man and might have confused this with another incident. That suggestion was borne out by the fact that no order for demolition was issued at the time. The second point was that while the council decided the place should be used as a storeroom, counsel deprecated the suggestion that Bransgrove undertook to use it as a storeroom only. He simply decided not to use it as a dwelling in the meantime. Then he changed his mind and it became a contest between him and the council whether he could use it as a dwelling. It was submitted the only question was whether the building was at present in a fit condition for use as a dwelling. Counsel suggested it would have been fairer for the council to have helped Bransgrove by giving him an idea how the place could be improved instead of arbitrarily telling him to demolish it.

BRANSGROVE’S EVIDENCE. Bransgrove said he owned quarter of an acre in Courtenay Street with two houses on it. One of them was an old two-storey house that was occupied by tenants for seven years at rents ranging from 15s to £l. There were four tenants, but no cases of infectious disease among them were reported. The first time Inspector Day approached him was when he built a shed too near the boundary, but he allowed it to remain when it was explained that in future the trouble would be overcome by the removal of the two-storey house. The inspector ne#er condemned the house or stopped its removal, and he had received no notice to that effect. About two years ago, said Bransgrove, he let a removal contract to Baker Bros. He did not know he had to get a permit from the Taranaki County Council. The building was partially reerected when he received the first notice from the health authorities. After,the house had been used as a storeroom Tonge approached him saying he was in poor circumstances and he agreed to let him have the place free of rent for six months. To Mr. Quilliam: He spent £4 and gave some timber to Tonge to give him a start. Tonge came down from Auckland. He could keep the place on after six months by paying the interest. He had an agreement with Tonge relating to the occupancy of the property. Counsel: But Tonge has cut some of the blackberry?—Not much, as far as I can see.

Counsel (after perusing the agreement) : I see by the agreement that Tonge is to keep down the noxious weeds to the satisfaction of the inspecBransgrove said he knew of plenty of sections in the district with more weeds on them. When the building w*as used as a store he kept in it building and fencing material and some second-hand motorcycles. He believed Inspector Day had confused one conversation with him with another. He denied using the place as a store because he knew the county council* would pull it down if he used it as a dwelling.

THE OCCUPIER’S STORY. Frederick A. V. Tonge said that since •he had gone into the place it had been painted and papered, glass had been put in the windows, a wash-house had been put up and a chimney erected. If the case were decided in Bransgrove’s favour it was intended to do other things, including connecting with the town water supply. He had four children. He intended eventually to use the 50 acres on the section for cropping and dairying. He gave details of the ventilation from the windows, which he considered sufficient according to the by-laws. He had examined every one of the 116 weatherboards in the place. He found 73 were sound, 19 were cracked and 24 had other defects, such as borer.. .He papered the place and saw the lining. About 80 per cent, of it was all right. He removed the boards affected with borer and replaced them with sound ones. It would take about £BO to make the place in first-class condition. Neither he nor his wife had found the house damp or dirty. To Air. Quilliam: For the expenditure of £BO the building could be made to comply with the borough bydaws. After what Dr. Mecredy and the other witnesses had said he was prepared to take the risk of living in the house in its present condition. . Fred A. Coleman, builder, said that in his opinion the building was quite fit to live in. On the whole the. weatherboarding was in good condition, some of it being very fine timber,pit-sawn rimu, not procurable to-day. There were not enough piles and there was a sligh spring in the floors., but they were reasonably good. Inside the bu * ldin ° peared to be quite snug and scrupilously clean. The day he visited it the weather was stormy. There was no question that the place could be greatly improved. He thong i a sum less than £BO would put it in better condition. , To Air. Quilliam: To make the place more suitable for occupation he would only put in a sink, seeing the building was so old. He did not agree with Amoore or Whittaker when they said the place was not fit to live in. As the house stood to-day, he considered it •no sanitary dry, ventilated and .suitS ® 'vould-tave nu

objection to his own family living m the house. . William H. Jones and Frank Hartnell, builders, and Leonard Robert Harvey a pastor, gave evidence in support of the defence. The latter said he and his wife had been through the building and found it quite comfortable. and dry. He-would be glad to live in i himself if in poor circumstances. There were people living in worse places