A WRECKING JOB

Hokitika Guardian, 9 May 1930, Page 4

A WRECKING JOB

WHOSE,LIABILITY?

(By Telegraph—Press Association). . -WELhpGTON, May 8. .' William Wilson. •: ((Wood, • -merchant, V and Edward Norman, labourer, were J the defendants inibthe Magistrate’s / Court in a'case,.to-day in which'WUliam John Seater;k;merchanty claimed £250 for damage tO-ff house, and £3 3s architect’s fees’ fhH'a report on th& damage, and: also £3O for loss of' profits on the use of the 1 house, whioh Was partly demolished by Norman. ' ' The story was that Wilson had a house to wreck and Sent Norman‘ to do the jpb, but Nci&man tackled the wrong h'duie. “■ ( '' J |' Wilson’s dCtfence was that the cbjrhage did not take place in . the course .• of. Norman’s employment,, and 'therp \ Vvas the suggestion fi ihat Norman ,did!| r - not act in good faiph, but was vis-/ dictive against Wijspn, (counsel saying; that there had beep ; a rightly, or wrongly:,..having made an accusation that certain -wood sold from his yard had not been .accounted for.

Only when the house breaking oper* ations had been-: performed i, on ; -.tha empty house, at-. lsj Maimer-' Terr&pe* last' March,: to i the .ofitage where- the: walls were, pulled ddwn) and Che botha and other fittings taken out, was ifi-v, discovered that thefipTong house • waa'7 being . v.’on?:: ' UV!" .' ' The od-ner was-a'wfitded damages! / .

“This is a very-'-e&'traordinary cake. The house happens- to? be the thirteenth, which ife >o a-' proverbially"unlucky number,” said, the in giving judgment 1 .? 1 1 There were mariynoints of simildfitv between the twoi bouses. He did not consider 'that negb'gence on the part of Norman had been established. Judgment would be entered for' plaintiff against both ,defendants with coM:s.?,'