RE-ERECTION OF DWELLING

Taranaki Daily News, 3 August 1931, Page 2

RE-ERECTION OF DWELLING

CLAIM FOR PAYMENT HEAIRD VALUE OF HOUSE QUESTIONED. ALLEGED TOTALLY UNSUITABLE A claim for £l6B 9s 4d, thc_ balance allegedly owing on the re-erection of a house destroyed by fire with material from another house which was sold for’ removal, was made by Frank Dent, farmer, New Plymouth, against J. Somcrvail, labourer, New Plymouth, in the New Plymouth Magistrate's Court before Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M. The claim set out that payments amounting to £7lB 9s 4d had been made and credit was ■ given for £550, leaving the balance sued for. A counter-claim asserted that the sum of £590 and not £550 was paid and that the house was reasonably worth only £390, and the claim therefore was for an over-payment of £2OO. The hearing was not concluded and was adjourned to a date to be arranged. A request was made by counsel for the defendant that after hearing of the evidence the magistrate would inspect the property. Mr. C. ’E. Monaghan, who appeared for Dent, said the action arose 'out of an arrangement between the plaintiff and defendant in May, 1930. Pr.or to that date the plaintiff was in occupation as the lessee of a property of the defendant on Smart Road. On April 3 the house was destroyed by fire. The question arose whether the defendant would re-erect the house, and he decided to have a new place erected. Ho had received the insurance, which amounted to £6-00, on. the house, and the furniture had been insured for £75. He indicated at first that he did not intend to re-build, but as it was essential to the working of the property by plaintiff that there .should be a house on jt, the defendant made an offer to plaintiff that if be did not insist on the rebuilding he would give him £350 and the lease should be continued. ARRANGEMENT FOR BUILDING. The plaintiff at that time had a I'ight under his lease to purchase the property, and he felt that it was his intention ultimately to purchase. The defendant then obtained tenders for,the erection of a house, and told plaintiff that the lowest tender he could get for the erection of a similar house was £785. This, he said, was too much for him to spend.. Discussions ensued up to about the middle of May, and as the plaintiff had some practical knowledge of building, he said he thought a place could be erected, for less than that amount. The plaintiff also said, that he knew of a competent man in Wanganui who could be got to help on the work with the plaintiff. The plaintiff indicated to the defendant that his wife was the owner of a house in Devon Street west, which he thought might be bought for removal, and the material used in the erection of a new place at Smart Arrangements were made accordingly, and the defendant agreed to pay £3OO for the place for removal. The question of the new house, and a plan for the place quantities of material required for the were referred to Air. Sutton, who prepared plans and measured the material there would be . in the old house and gave an estimate of the additional timber required. The plan ivas not now available, but Mr. Sutton’s figures would' be submitted to the court.

There was no contract between the parties, but merely an arrangement to rebuild the- place, and Dent expected to get a house at something less- than £7BO, The costs were to be kept as low as possible, and as a fact they were kept down. Pope, the Wanganui builder, arrived on May 12, and the work of -demolishing the house on Devon Street west was commenced on the following day. The defendant said he wished to pay Dent something. for the expense in which he was involved, and as the price of the house was to be paid, Dent was paid £550, and Airs. Dent gave the defendant a receipt for the £3OO for the old house. Work was then commenced at Smart Road, and the defendant was there on many occasions during the erection bf the house. He also made numerous inquiries as to how the money was going. Finally the defendant indicated to the plaintiff that he had no more money to pay anything further on the house. Records had been kept and shown to the defendant of payments made during the course of the erection of the house, and. in those statements the items appeared, and he was given credit for the £550. HAD NO AIORE MONEY. At that stage there was no difference of opinion between the parties. Even as late as August 1- the defendant had indicated he had no money, and as the plaintiff was using borrowed money, lie did not feel inclined to go further, and that was why there were some small matters which still required-completion, but they were not serious. Efforts were made to get a settlement, and the plaintiff offered, if he got a squaring up, not to charge the defendant for his own work on the job. The defendant offered to raise some money on his life insurance policy, but plaintiff ■suggested he would not do that and offered to wait a little longer to give him a chance to get some money. Nothing was done for two months, and then the plaintiff instructed his solicitor to write for a settlement. It was submitted that a house had been erected for the defendant, in terms of the arrangement made to take the place of the one which' wa,s burnt down. The main issue in the matter would probably be round the price of £3OO which was paid for the old house. That had been agreed to and the defendant could not now say that he had paid too much. . Air. F. S. Grayling (counsel for Somervail): That sounds rather like an admission that the place was not worth that amount. Mr. Monaghan; Not at all. Evidence was given by Dent following the line of counsel’s explanations. He explained that the whole of the £3OO had been used for the benefit of Airs. Dent in the paying off of a mortgage on the property. In answer to Air. Grayling the plaintiff said he had no knowledge of the quantity or value of the old timber used ip. the erection of the house, lie was positive that all the timber of the demolished house was used in the new house. Plaintiff said there were no nailholes left in the roofing iron. They were all soldered up before the iron was placed on the roof. He denied that the holes had been stopped with putty, also that the doors dragged on the floors, and that there were breaks in the papering and the. plaster ceiling. He denied that the price for the old. house was £250 and not £3OO. He knew the defendant received a receipt for £3OO. William R, Pope, Wanganui, gave evidence in support of that of the plaintiff. In answer Air. Grayling he said

the material in the old house would not be worth £3OO. He did not actually make any estimate of its value. He considered 17 weeks was a reasonable time for two men to take in the erection of the house. Witness admitted having told Dent that he did not think the place could be built for £'sso, but he, did not hear Dent tell Somervail that. He and Dent had gone into the matter and figured that the place would cost £671. Air. Grayling said the defence principally was that they had not got a reasonable job, and that it was an unconscionable contract. Amelia Al.\ Street, Smart Road, said the building of the house was a standing joke among people along the road. ■She stated the framework had fallen over during the course of its erection and so had the top of the chimney. She described the place as insanitary and unfit for human occupation. Ada AL Martin, the present tenant of the house, described it as badly planned and badly built. She detailed what she considered were defects in the construction of the place. Thomas Martin, farmer, said he took the lease of the property from Dent on October 31. He also described defects in the construction of the house. Nothing had been done to the house since he went into it. Alfred Boon, ‘builder and contractor, said he had inspected the house and described it as a very shoddy jo . He doubted if it was built by tradesmen. A fair price for the house, in new materials throughout, at the time it was built, would be £485. Its value as it stood then was about '£4so. The length of time required to build a house of that class, for a man and a boy, or two men, would be about eight weeks. Seventeen weeks was much too long. Ho thought, from the description given by counsel, the old house would be worth, for removal, more li'ke £3O than £3OO.