BUILDING DISPUTE

Taranaki Daily News, 13 February 1935, Page 10

BUILDING DISPUTE

LENGTHY COURT PROCEEDINGS. CLAIM AND' COUNTER-CLAIM. The hearing was continued at the Mag- | istrate’s Court, New Plymouth, yesterday of ah action in which James Gifford, a Vogeltown builder, claimed from A. W. Salaman, herbalist, New Plymouth, the sum of £37 14s lid for work done and materials supplied by plaintiff to defendant up to September 20, 1934. Salaman. entered a counter-claim for £4B for alleged breach of contract, faulty workmanship and negligence in connection with the erection of a two-roomed building which Gifford erected on Salaman’s property. Of this £33 was claimed in respect of alleged negligence in erecting the western wall of the building on the adjoining land. The case has been adjourned several times since the hearing began in November and has not yet been brought to a conclusion. Mr. C. H. Croker appeared for Gifford and Mr. H. R. Billing for Salaman. Mr. Croker continued the cross-exam-ination of Salaman yesterday regarding the understanding between him and Gifford. Salaman again denied that he had inspected the work while it was in progress. Evidence in rebuttal was then called. Roy Norman Eva, labourer, said that had been employed on the building job in question for three weeks to help with the concrete work. A line indicatling the wall had been drawn from the wall of the shop and the wall of a brick lavatory. He had seen Salaman six or seven times while on the job. He certainly appeared to be interested in the work. He and Gifford frequently spoke with one another, but he did not overI hear their conversation. Cross-examined, Eva said the boundary of the wall was clearly defined by a cutting bank. Salaman had had to walk near the wall. Any intelligent man could have seen where the wall was going to be built. Jean Margaret Gifford gave evidence of typing the specifications and the building contract. At that time she was employed by Salamn. While typing the contract she had seen Salaman and her father discussing the plan of the building in the other room. Salaman said he had done building before and wanted only a small plan to see what was being done. She knew that Salaman had taken an interest in the building while his job was going on. Mrs. Salaman had told her about a large house Salaman had built in India. She identified the plan of the building drawn up by her father as the plan he and Salaman had discussed before signing the contract. Gifford, recalled, said certain of Salaman’s complaints referred to work for - which he was not responsible. Salaman > had seen the job while it was in proi gress three or four times a week. , The case was then adjourned sine die , to permit arrangements being made for the attendance of two other witnesses,