OLD CITY BUILDING.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1130, 18 May 1911, Page 8

OLD CITY BUILDING.

. * TO STAND OR COME DOWN? THE CASE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL. AND THE OTHER SIDE. .Yesterday in the Magistrate's ■ Court. Dr. JL , Arthur, S.M., heard further evidence in tho ca-e in which James Doyle, City Sanitary Inspector, is proceeding against Hamilton Giliner, of Wellington, for failing to comply with a notice tj ])u.U doivn u condemned building know.i as' Waruock and Adkiu's -05 Lamljton Quay. The city solicitor, Mr. J. O'Shea, appeared for plaintilV, and .Mr. T. W Hhlop i'or defendant. The last witness called by Mr. O'Shea was Dr. Chesson, fUo holds tho diploma of public health. Alter making two examinations of t!io buildins during tii>, present month, he described it as an iu-:-amtary, unwholesome building. At the back the flooring was to the ground, and, where it was raised sufficiently, it was not properly venfilated. The grour.it underneath was damp. On tho south side the walls were distinctly damp for seme distance up. On. the north si&., Iho timbers are rotten in places. Vi'ltness addsd that he had poked ■ his stick right through one of the plates at the north end of the back wall. Generally speaking, the timber of the wLolo buildin? was rotton. and infested with thy borer. Tho staircases were "not tco good." There were indications of rat.-, the atmosphere was musty, and, in case of an outbreak of infectious disease, tho building would be a danger to the community. Mr. O'Shea here remarked to the magistrate that it had been suggeste 1 that there was an old cellar under the building. Although ho had no witnesses to bring forward on that question, ho intended "to ask to have the floor opened at a certain point. Mr. Hislop submitted Dr. Cresson to a lengthy cross-examination regarding his qualifications and experience. Inter alia counsel questioned witness as to when he had obtained hi? D.r.H. Wkness replied that he- had obtained tho degree in London in 190 G. "Is it an honorary degree?" askci counsel. /'No. it is not," said witness. "I obtained it by examination." "Well, then, no nonsense," said Mr. Hislop. "Tell us how you got it. Wero you ever in London?" Mr. O'Shca objected (0 the attitude adopted by Mr. liis'.op. Iln strongly objected to witnesses boing bullied in this manlier. Tho magistrate remarked that he hal understood witness to say that he had been in London, and there was no necessity for counsel to inquire so closely into tho question of degree. Other doctors ha.l obtained their D.r.H.. and there was no suggestion that Dr. Chcsson had exerted any particular influence to get it. It was sufficient that ho stated that he had obtained it by examination,. Further cross-examination followed, during which the witness declared that his condemnation of the building had been based on its general appearance. . Mr. Hislop: Did you know the place had been condemned before you went there?—"l did." Jlr. Hislop: Dr. Frengley showed you round and pointed out tho defects?— "No. I cauuot say that he did. Dr. Holmes and I went round on our own." At this stage the Court adjourned for an examination of the building. Ou resuming, Mr. Hislon outlined tho evidence which lie intended to call, and stated that he hoped to be able to satisfactorily answer the objections that had been .raised by the olier side. He submitted that the condition of t'.'.e building three years ago had nothing to do with tho present case. The question, was whether the building was a danger to public health at present, and whether it was necessary, in the interests of publie health, to pull down a pronerty that had been valued at .CIBOO by tlio Government Valuer. He then called evidence. iWilliam John Bell, draper, dsposo'd that, for 18 years, he had been in the employment of Messrs. Warnock and Adkiu, and had been mostly engaged in the ■ front of the shop. He had occasionally been subject "to inconvenience from smells—say, about two or threo times a year. These smells generally arose from dead rats. He had only twice known of water from the street entering tho building. If the fanlights were open, and water entered the building, there would be a musty smell for some days afterwards, and, :f the roof gutter dropped (as it had done on two or three occasions), then tho water would flow down the inside of the walls and make them damn. Thero had been no other smells which witness could define. They burnt gas in the building. Witness left the plac-o about February, 1910. He wab there when the repairs were bsing effected after the last Court case. To Mr. O'Shea: He had been present wheu Mr. Barrengor was effecting repairs, but did not notice any unusually stroii" smells. Mr. Warnock was ill about that time, and one of the women emnloyed in the shop was ill also. 3lr. O'Shea: What condition of health wore you in when you left tho firm's employment?—"l was in a bad stato of health." A\ hat did the doctor say you were suffering from?—"He said that it was nervous breakdown. I was also suffering from quinsy." Continuing, Witness stated (hat it was an internal complaint that had helped to bring about his nervous condition. He had been ordered outdoor employment, and had no objection to his doctor Ming called as a witness. In answer to a further question, the witness said that the last flood in the building was about seven years ago, bet . ™ V?° (1 -° !oc!: ing was laid down. Jeyes Jiluid had been used in. the shop several times a year when smells ocenrred. In answer to another question, witness described the repairs effected bv Mr. Barrenger. James Russell, retired builder, who had seen tho building, considered that tho woodwork was in a very fair state of preservation. If certain work (specified "!'■!'■ Uiath"!d) was carried out the building would be in a condition to last lor thn next twelve or fiiteen years. In cross-examination, witne's referred t° "no rf the plates, that was said by Dr. Makgill to bn "gone," and gave it as his opinion that the plate was as good now as tlie day it was put in. As (0 ventilation, it would be simple enough to ventilate the floor, though, perhaps, the ventilation would not be quite as good as could be wished. What rubbish there was in tho walls could be easily removed. " ' Dr. W. Kington FylTe, who examined the. building some years ago and also recently, stated that it was now in a better condition than when first examined. Somo of the timbers were rotten, but not a great many. Where maifai had been used tho borer was present, and ho noticed that, where some of tho shop fittings had been left, there wero greater indications of the borer. As tho build-1 ing stood at present ho did not think that it. would affect the health of anyone prosecuting business ihere, but ho would not say that it was satisfactory for it could be made very much better'. On the last occasion that ho entered it' it smelt fairly frosh. When he examiner! it some fen years ago lie made inquiries as to tho health of thoso cmployed, but had not found that there was any prevalence of any particular disease. In his opinion the building could ba ventilated snlliciently to check dryrot, and also to check any evil arising from dampness. Tho passages and rooms upstairs wore well lighted, but might bo better ventilated. Answering a question by Mr. O'Shea witness :-aid that he thought that Mr Cliatficld'-. plans and . specifications, if carried out, would properly drain the building site including the ground under the floor. Mr. O'Shca was proceeding (0 question Dr. Fyli'e about the condition of things previously described by Dr. Malcgill when tho magistrate remarked that, alter hearing Dr. Maligill's evidence last week, he had expected to find something infinitely worse than he had found in tho building yesterday morning. Dr. .lames, Dr. H. J. M'Lean and Dr. H. A. H. Gilmcr gave evidence for the defence. They agreed in general with I what had been said by Dr. I-'yfi'p. A. D. Pownall, cycle agent, living next door, also gave evidence «s did Charles Robert Barrenger, who had effected repairs in IS"/ at a cost of .£7OO. To Mr. O'Shea: He admitted that, in connection with that repair work, ho had been fined for working without a permit,

William Charles <;hatfio!d, architect, and a member of the Royal Sanitary Inst, of London, deposed to having prepared plan? and specifications for nulling the building in a satisfactory condition. These were siibmilicd in Iho City Council. Witness considered that if his plans were carried out. they would answer the objections raised by the prosecution. To Mr. O'Shea: He did not carry out hi.s work three years ago with the object f.f "just giving the building life for a further three year?." He admitted, however, that he knew of the agreement that had boon come to between tlie parties after (he last cafe. Witness further stated to Ml. O'Shea that, when examining the building, he hod looked for the condition's described by Br. Mnkgill, but hod failed to find them. Mr. O'Shea intimated, before com plot ir.3 cross-examination of this witness, that he would like to consult the City Engineer, and would, therefore, a;k for an adjournment. Mr. Hislop objected, but his Worship said that he did not wish either side to be dissatisfied, and an adjournment was accordingly granted until to-morrow afternoon.