THE BUILDING BY-LAWS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 2, 27 January 1909, Page 4

THE BUILDING BY-LAWS.

THE FRUITS OF EVASION. A couple of months ago an out-of-date structure in Brougham-street, antiquated in appearance, and bending beneath the weight of its years, suddenly sprouted what the borough by-laws dignified by the name of a portico. To •most people it was just a verandah, and no more. It was quite, in keeping with the architectural beauty of the structure to which it was attached, but not in line will the pretensions of a seaside watering-place. Neither would it pass 'the standard set by the borough building by-laws. Lastly, but apparently 'most important of all, it was erected without the builder conforming to the •by-laws by obtaining a permit. The City Fathers met in solemn conclave, ; and decided to prosecute the builder. 'For some reason or other, perhaps a technical one, and perhapsi because dog does not readily cat dog, the subsequent •prosecution was levelled against the occupier of the premises, a man engaged in the humble yet historic calling of a 'fisherman. He was haled before the Magistrate, and found guilty of a breach of the by-laws, his defence being that he had lieen misled by his builder, who should, in his opinion, have seen to the necessary formalities. It then became necessary to demolish the verandah, and this was iloni'i by the. occupier, the builder not falling in with the suggestion of the occupier that he should attend to this part of the business. Then the builder applied for payment for his work, and followed up the. application with a. summons. The case came before the 'Magistrate's Court yesterday, when William Howson, builder, of New Plymouth, sued Joseph Grupcrn, fishmonger, for .til 18s, being .Eli 2s Kid for altering a window and £5 15s 2d for erecting the verandah. The defendant admitted the claim for £0 2s Kid. and paid £3 0* lOd of it into court, eotmterclaiming for the, balance, '£3 2s. on the following grounds:—That through the default of the plaintiff hi failing to obtain a building permit, contrary to the express representations made by the plaintiff to the ilefcßidnnt, the defendant was proceeded against for breach of the bylaws, and Was fined Ids and costs, in all £1 ISs; that by order of the Council lie wits compelled to pull down the verandah, at a cost of 10s: that prior lo the default of .the plaintiff in oblainI ing the said permit being made, known I to the defendant, the latter had paid ' 14s for painting the verandah; that the [ consideration for the contract had failed, I and he claimed a refund of the moneys paid by him ( £3 2s). Lengthy evidence was given, anil the Magistrate took lime to consider. On resmnhg after the luncheon adjournment, he reviewed the evidence. Tie said that the evidence had showed that the work done on the verandah was nf no value to the defendant, and the builder was undoubtedly responsible. The builder knew very well that lie had to work according to the municipal bylaws, and if be elected to construct a verandah that would not be passed by the borough engineer and without getting the necessary permit, so that the edilice had to be demolished, he could hardly expect the owner to pay for the work.' A solicitor had to get a certifi•cute. If he neglected to do so. brought a ease to Court, and the whole thing fell through 071 account of this irregularity, he could hardly expect his client to settle his bill of costs. Clearly the plaintiff was not entitled-to the £5 15s--2d claimed on account of the verandah, and tho counter-claim would also be . allowed. Each party was ordered to pay his own costs.