CONTRACTOR’S CLAIM

Taranaki Daily News, 28 November 1934, Page 3

CONTRACTOR’S CLAIM

DEVON STREET BUILDING CASE. COUNTER-CLAIM OF DEFENDANT. A civil claim by James Gifford, a Vogeltown builder, for £37 14s lid for work done and materials supplied, and a counter-claim by W. A. Salaman, herbalist, New Plymouth, for £4B alleging breach of contract, negligence and faulty workmanship, occupied the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court for the greater < part of yesterday. The case was adjourned after the defence had commenced its case. j ' Mr. C. H. Croker, on behalf of Gifford, said the claim arose out of a. contract to build an annex to a shop in Devon. Street. The claim arose out of additional work done and material supplied up to September 20, 1934. The counter-claim alleged a breach of contract, faulty workmanship in connection with the erection of a two-roomed building. The counter-claim was divided into three clauses: (a) A sum of £33 1 was claimed for wrongly erecting the western wall on adjacent land; (b) £5 for loss of the building during such time as was required to pull down and re-erect the wall; (c) £lO for faulty workmanship in that the building leaked badly, for failing to instal a specified sink and. sink top, and for failing to flash the window-frame properly to specifications. Mr. L. C. Sladden, surveyor, said the western wall encroached on to the adjacent property 4J inch ; at one end of - the section and 5J inches at the other. There was no means by which the files indicated there was a party wall. Gifford said he entered into contracts with Salaman early in September to make alterations and additions to the shop. Salaman pointed out the survey pegs at the back of the section and instructed the building be built from the centre of one peg to the outside of the brick wall already in existence. He did not consider the existing wall a party wall and his first knowledge of it as such was when Salaman’s solicitors communicated with him. All work was carried out to specifications, except where Salaman authorised changes. It was not necessary to flash the window-frames as they were set in concrete. To Mr. H. R. Billing, representing Salaman, Gifford said he took every precaution to ascertain the building was on the correct position. The water-spoui-ing was adequate to carry the water off the roof. • . . He did several jobs and had not charged for them, said’ Gifford to Mr. Croker. The plans were shown to Sala- ■ man and an agreement typewritten by his typist and two copies signed by each. The typist witnessed the signatures. Salaman read the specifications and signed the agreement. To the magistrate, Gifford said plaster was used in preference to paper in the rooms but no saving was effected. There was nothing to indicate that the alleged party wall was intended as such, said Gifford. Edward Collins, assistant New Plymouth borough inspector, said he was surprised that the contractor had not used the recess in the wall for building on to. He was surprised on a later visit to find a window in the boundary wall. The frames w°re put in in ffie general method used when c.onstructing concrete walls and should withstand rain. There was no necessity to flash them. Gifford was a competent builder and all work was satisfactory and in accordance with the borough by-laws. To Mr. Billing, Collins said if the frames were up flush- with the concrete the flashing would be necessary, but the frames were not flush. ■ . Bernard William Cai ter, plasterer, said he plastered the walls, so .that.the fibre would not show through. Salaman told Gifford he did not want paper because it would tear when he moved 1 boxes about. Frank Gifford, apprentice, said under Salaman’s instructions he drove a nail in the mortar of th; brick wall from which the building line was laid. Mr. Billing submitted that Gifford, having undertaken architect’s —orla should assume the responsibilities of an architect. He should have ascertained the correct position of the boundary. Hq should have examined the wall near Devon Street, which would have clearly shown it to be a party wall. The plans and specifications were very rough and crude, and that was the whole trouble. William Taylor, registered architect, maintained the offset of the top of the wall indicated that it was built as a party wall. Had Salamt_i told him the whereabouts of the boundary, knowing of the presence of a party wall, he would not be satisfied. He would not take it for granted that the section was uniform in width. Had he had difficulty in defining the line he would not have accepted the word of Salaman. He would have ordered a surveyor. The shutter on the western wall did not fit. It did not matter whether it was a window frame or a base for shutters, if it was flush with the concrete wall the rain would ultimately work through.