WRECKED WRONG HOUSE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 967, 9 May 1930, Page 16

WRECKED WRONG HOUSE

LABOURER’S EXPENSIVE MISTAKE OWNER GETS DAMAGES Press Association WELLINGTON, Today. Two men, William Wilson, a wood merchant, and Edward Norman, a labourer, were the defendants in a case in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday in which William John Seater, a merchant, claimed £250 for damage to his house, £3 3s architect’s fees for a report on the damage, and £3O for loss of profits on the use of the house, which was partly demolished by Norman, ’J'HE story was that Wilson had a house to wreck, and sent Norman to do the job, but that Norman tackled the wrong house. Wilson’s defence was that the damage did not take place in the course of Norman’s employment, and there was a suggestion that Norman did not act in good faith, but was vindictive toward Wilson, counsel saying there had been a quarrel, Wilson rightly or wrongly having made an accusation that certain wood sold from his yard had not been accounted for. In evidence, William Wilson said he gave explicit instructions to Norman. Norman gave witness the impression that he knew the house even before he started out. When witness asked Norman later about the affair, Norman said, “Oh, I don’t know; I saw this house empty, and I got to it.” There had been numerous disputes between witness and Norman. Mr. Sievwrigbt, on behalf of Norman. submitted,that what was done by his client was bona-fide within the scope of his employment. Norman, in evidence, said he had followed the directions given him to find the house. They were not very explicit. A passer-by told him the house he stopped at was the only empty one in the terrace. Both front and back doors of the house were ajar. In addition, the building was in a state of disrepair, fittings being scattered about the floor. The house was no better than other houses he had pulled down. He had pulled down better. After witness had been working two days, Wilson came along, said the building was the wrong one, and “hit the roof.” “This is a very extraordinary case. The house happens to be the thirteenth, which is a proverbially unlucky number,” said the magistrate, in giving judgment. There were many points of similarity between the two houses. He did not consider that negligence on the part of Norman had been established. Judgment would be entered for plaintiff against both defendants, with costs.