SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1840, 28 August 1913, Page 11

SUPREME COURT.

CASE OVER A BUILDING JOB. His Honour Mr. Justice Sim was occupied six hours yesterday in hearing a caso in which H. E. Manning, builder, Ellis Avenue, sued Mrs. Hall, St. Mary's Street, for £30, extra work occasioned by alterations to a houso which ho had ercc-tcd for Mrs. Hall at tho corner of Tinakori Road and St'. Mary's Street, and eventually tho hearing was adjourned until to-day. Mr. A. W. Blair, in opening the caso for the plaintiff, said tho amount was under £1.00, but it was feared that tho defence would turn on tho question of encroachment, so that the proceedings, which had been commenced in tho Magistrate's Court, werp abandoned. Their fears wero not justified, however, as no defence had been raised on that question, but that explained why tho action. was being heard in tho Supreme Court. The contract was made on October 24, 1911, for tho orectibn of a building, and plaintiff had made considerable progress when it was discovered by ono of the men that the building encroached on the street. Tho building was on identically tho same spot as tho previous ono, which had stood there for thirty years, and which had been destroyed by firo, and the. permit had been'obtained from tho .City Council far its erection, but it was found that there was an encroachment of 4J feet. Tho consequence was that tho whole building had to he reorganised. Tho framework, and the. first floor joints wero up, and all tho rafters had been cut, tho skeleton of the building being eomploto oil the first floor, and the framework of tho second floor beint: ready to be raised 1 into position. When it became necessary to alter the building, 4}. feet had to be taken off one side and ten inohes off the front, which meant taking ten inches.off tho brick wall, jinHing out all the pile's and rearranging all tho studs . Plaintiff claimed £36 for that extra work, after deducting £28 for tho work saved by making a smaller building. Plaintiff, who said that his original specifications wero destroyed in a firo at his premises near Manners Street, bore out these statements, adding thatafter a surveyor had reported to Mrs. Hall slio told him to mako the,necessary alterations, and tho plastering on tho brick-work, adding: "Be reasonable with yonr charges." In cross-examination, plaintiff said that ho may have paid 9s. Gd. balance of insuranco monoy on April 10, 1912, but ho could not say, because during that year they paid him over £2000. Ho admitted, though, that in his summons a month later ho claimed £6 15s. Bd. as refund of insurance money. Ho charged £(> 65. paid to an architect for drainago and other plans, but- such plans would have' had to bo prepared if tho building had not been Altered, and ho could not have altered the plans himself in .twenty minutes. The stairs would have had to bo altered in any caso, as insufficient.,head--room had been provided. -- "■ Other witnesses having given evidence on behalf.of plaintiff,' Mr. Bell submitted in defence -that tho alterations' to the building effected a saving, tho building pallor, and less material being used. They admitted three extras included in the claim, but repudiated all tho big items. Mrs. Hall having given evidence, tho case was adjourned until this morning..