OLD CITY BUILDING.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1132, 20 May 1911, Page 13

OLD CITY BUILDING.

IS IT SANITARY? CASE FOR DEFENCE CONCLUDED. Yesterday in tbo Magistrate's Court Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., heard tho remainder of the evidence for tho defence in the caso in which James Doyle, City Sanitary Inspector, is proceeding against Hamilton Gilmer, of Wellington, for failing to comply with a notice to pull down a condemned building known as Warnock and Adkin's, 205 Lanihton Quay. The city solicitor, Mr. J. O'Shea, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. T. W. Hislop for defendant. Before evidence was proceeded with, Mr. O'Shea remarked that there was a point to mention. At the last hearing, after visiting tho premises, the Magistrate had remarked that there was not such an accumulation of rubbish in tho building as ho had expected to see after hearing the evidence of Dr. Makgill. His Worship's comment, said counsel, had been fully reported in the papers, but the press had not reported that part of Air. Barringor's evidence- which stated that tho rubbish had been removed since Dr. Makgill had mado his first inspection three years ngo. A wrong impression had thus got abroad.

Tlio Magistrate remarked that, iu any case, the condition of the building three years ago, would have nothing to do with the case. Mr. O'Shea retorted that ho wished to bring it under his 'Worship's notico that Dr. Makgill was speaking of his first inspection when he referred to the rubbish. Mr. Hislop: Dr. Makgill said distinctly that ho had found the rats' nests and rubbish on the occasion of his recent inspection. Mr. O'Shea: Do you say that advisedly?-"! do." Mr O'Shea: Very well, then I'll ask his Worship to refer to his notes. The Magistrate remarked that thero was no necessity to do so at that stage. Ho had very full notes, and would not miss any point. Tho cross-examination of William C. Chatfield, architect, was then proceeded with. Mr. O'Shea drew attention to that part of witness's evidence, where it was stated that Lambtcn Quay was as wido, some thirty years ago, as it is now. Mr. O'Shea exhibited somo old views. Mr. Hislop■: Do you mean to suggest that it is possible to tell tho width of the street from those viows? Mr. O'Shea: I do mean to suggest it. Mr. Hislop: Well, 1 thought you knew more. Mr. O'Shea: I don't want any of your impertinent comments as to how much I ought to know. The cross-examination again proceeded, Mr. O'Shea asking: Were you present when Drs. Frenglcy, Chessou.and Holmes went over tho building?—"l was in the building." Did you direct them to any particular parts ?—Witness replied that he did not interfere with them, but spoko to Dr. Freiigley while tho other doctors went over tho building. Continuing, witness said that he had often been present when the building was inspected, but had not been there when the Acting-Prime Minister went over it.

Counsel then cross-examined witness at length regarding plans and specifications prepared by him (witness) for tho proposed renovation of tho building. In his replies, witness reiterated that tho work outlined in tho specifications, if carried out, would put tho building in a satisfactory condition. Henry Mainland, builder, who had made an examination of tho building at tho request of defendant's solicitor, considered that, .by repairs, it could be placed in a satisfactory condition. Among other things, witness said that the plate on tho south wall was sound, and that, of seventy studs which ho had examined in that wall, only eight wero doubtful, and theso were not beyond use. Both tho plate and tho studs wcro larger than required by the by-law. On tho north wall thoro wero defects which witness did not think that there would bo any difficulty in renovating. For from £250 to £300, witness considered that tho building could be put into satisfactory order again. _ To build the old building new again it would cost from £3500 to £4000. Judging from_ the present appearance of the building witness considered that it would havo been worth £2000. ' Mr/ O'Shea cross-examined witness as to the condition of certain parts of tho buildinp; described by tho City Engineer. He thought that the defects in the building were not so serious as had been stated by tho City Engineer. John Matthews, builder, who had examined tho building in company with the previous witness, agreed with the views that the latter hod expressed. Tliis closed the case for tho defence. Tho magistrate intimated that he would deliver judgment on Friday next.