District Court.

Manawatu Herald, 14 October 1899, Page 2

District Court.

PALMERSTON— THURSDAY.

(Before His Honor District Judge . Kettle.)

Mary Jane McCar'hy v. The New Zealand Insurance Company, claim £50.

Mr Loughnan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Tread well for the defendant.

It appears that the plaintiff owned a dwediug-h ;u«e at Foxton, which was insured in che New Zealand Insurance Office for £50 When ifc wai destroyed by fko the Company rein. stated tho building, the contract price being £52 11s. For the plaintiff it was contended that the new building was not constructed in a proper minner, and that the house was not fit for dwelling purposes. For the plaintiff, Mr Loughnan called William Adams, builder, who de» posed that he had examined the building in question. He said that a good deal of inferior timber was used <n the structure, and some of the sizes were not large enough to give the required strength. No proper box frames had been provided for the sashes, and as a result the rain was liable to beat in, and destroy the . paper. The woodwork of the mantel piece was projecting over the brick?, and wa3 liable to catch fire. Some of the timber was good enough, but had been used very green. Owing to the manner in which the iron had been put on, the roof was bound to leak. Altogether the j:>b wa3 a very in^rinr onn.

Robert Edwards, architect, considered that the buildiug had b?ea very unfaithfully built, his condemnation of it generally agreeing with

that of the previous Tvitne3?. He thought the building must hive cost I jifce £50, but it w.13 an inferior job.

Frederick Taylov, carpenter, deposed that he built the original houso 28 years ago. The timber was rimu and white pine in the leanto, and tofcara and rimu in the fron* part. The total cost was between £70 and £80. He did not think thonew hou?e was a fair substitute for the old one.

Evicbnoe for fhe p'aimiff was also giv^n by W. 11. Spring, Theo Eastoo, and tha p.kiniiff horaelf. For the <Mence it was contended by Mi' Treadwell that under clause 14 of the insurance policy, the Com pany was only bound to reinstate any bui'ding substantially, and not actually similar in nature to th:s one destroyed by fire.

Charles Alfred Ewing, manager of the Company, detailed the particulars of the insurance. The total cost of the building vr&a £52 11?. Evidence was also given for the defence by E. Larcomb, H. Anderson, and John Thomp3oni

After hearing the conclusion of the evidence in the above case, and the argument of counsel, His Honor gave judgment for £10 and costs. — Standard.