A BUILDING DISPUTE

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 6, Issue 279, 29 May 1917, Page 3

A BUILDING DISPUTE

Sub-Contractor's Claim

Further evidence was taken in the Auckland Magistrate's Court on Friday last before Mr F. V. Frnzer, S.M , in tho case (partially heard at Pukekohe) in which Mr David Oil bert, painter an 1 papoihanger, of Pukekohe, claims from Messrs J. T. Hodgson and Sons, contractors, of Auckland, the sunt of i'l7 Is (Id in respect of painting and papering work carried out at a house iu Puke kohe luiilt for Mr.! K. Ledger liy Messrs Hodgson and Son

The defence, it will be remembered, is lha f thi! wallpaper I>(■<■<>ll,intr wavy Mr Mount, joy, the architect for tlio liouso, refused to [i iss Mr Gilbert's work as satisfactory, whilst Mr Gilbert's contention is that if any imperfections developed such was due to "grceri"' timber having been used for the walls and ceilings by Messrs Hodgson. Tuo counsel engaged in the are Mr McDonnell for the phuntilT and Mr J. G. Iladdow for M ossrs Hodgson. William John Davison, a witness fir the defence, recalled for crossexamination, stated that if at the end of a month In found the scrim damp he would say the lining was not perfectly dry. If scrim was left hanging for two months and was damp he would say there was something wrong with the surroundings, lie did not think green timber would cause rust marks without

staining as well, but not say it was impossible. In inspecting the house he noticed a discoloured freize board. The discolouration was due to the first coat of paint not drying thoroughly. He, as a painter, would refuse to comply with specifications if they called for something that was wrong. He would do without a lining paper if the architect told him to do without it, though he considered one was desirable. If he had done good work and had warned the architect of anything he required and the architect refused it he would say that the responsibility was the architect's

William Hodgson, a memb »r of the defendant firm, deposed that he entered into the contract for the house in April of last year. He worked Qn the job himself as a carpenter all the time and personally put up some of the lining. It was reasonably dry after a month's stacking and was up to the standard of an ordinary job. Two. months elapsed before the paper was put on. The weatherboards now showed some sign of shrinking but not more than he would expect from matai All coiling timber was bought dressed and was sold as seasoned. The timber appeared to be in good condition and reasonably dry for that class of timber. The architect refused to pass the job on completion and objected to the paperhanging and painting. Considerable trouble ensued over that and he (defendant) tried to get him to change his mind. The architect refused to issue certificate until the defects were put right. He (defendant) saw Mr Gilbert and left him with the impression that he would put things right. He had had to pay £6 odd for the rooms being repapered. That was the result of his and Mr Gilbert's refusal to do it, the architect having it done without consulting him. In the settlement a deduction was made from his contract price. Mr Mountjoy (the architect) finally tabulated requirements. The total deduction was £4.3 13s 7d, about £4l being for scrimming and papering. Cross-examined —He believed the specifications provided for all timber to be on the ground within four weeks from the signing of the contract but that was not done owing to circumstances. The war created special circumstances. The architect made no complaints about the papering during the job When he told Mr Mountjoy that Gilbert had subcontracted Mr Mountjoy said Gilbert was a man who would do a good job. He denied that the timber was green although it was not thoroughly dry and seasoned.

Philip Herbert Stanley Cook deposed he was employed by the defendants on the house as a carpenter and considered the wood t > have been dry. John Thomas Hodson, one of th<) defendants firm, deposed that he was on the job all the time. If the ceiling boards had shrunk, lie could only say they were dry when erected. All the timber was dry when used.

This concluded the evidence except that of Mr F. W Mountjoy. the architect, which will bo taken on commission in Invercargill. When that evidence is filed Mr Frazer will deliver judgment.