Carlisle Patriot, 10 Sep 1825 - Arbitration Cause - LOWDEN v. NIXSON (3)

[petra.mi...@doctors.org.uk]

Saturday 10 Sep 1825   (p. 2, col. 5 - p. 3, col. 6)

 

IMPORTANT ARBITRATION CAUSE.

LOWDEN v. NIXSON.

 

[continued]

 

Benjamin PROCTOR examined.—I am a mason and builder in Westmorland, of much experience, and I superintend Lord Lonsdale's buildings. I examined those of Hayclose very carefully, taking up part of two days. The front wall of the dwelling-house is in a very bad state, and the south end wall very much overhangs its base. The workmen made a mistake. Having taken a line, and having built on it for four feet, they find it wrong; they then overset, and it now stands in a very precarious situation. The wall that overhangs has nothing but soil to rest on; it is therefore in great danger of coming down. Many of the other walls are also in a bad state. The house appears to me to draw water in consequence of the stones not being placed as they ought to be in an exposed situation; a part of it is also built with bad sand, so that the lime does not bind as it would do with good sand; nor has there been a sufficient quantity of morter put into the walls; I have tapped them, and find them filled merely with loose rubble stones. The back kitchen wall is bilged outwards, and in great danger of coming down in consequence, it may be, of the want of through-stones, or the want of a good foundation. A part of the cattle-shed foundation is very bad; and must come down; the foundation stones seem as if tumbled in from a cart; there is no footing to the foundation, and the building is dangerous, but the danger could not be seen without digging. The walls of the thrashing-machine house ought to have been six inches thicker: the foundation is also without morter and a footing and is very badly done. There seems to be lime in the foundation of the dwelling-house. The foundation of the stables has a footing; it is most material, every workman knows the necessity of it. The foundations of the byer are defective, and the gable-end is very badly built. The stables are a tolerably good job, except that the timber is framed within the walls, which throws the weight of the roof on the footing-beam instead of the walls. The morter of the byer, machine-house, and sheds is all mixed with bad sand, and the lime is very bad in the court wall. The wall between the barn and cattle sheds, and between the barn and byer, is also bad, and has not a sufficient quantity of through-stones: I do not think it safe. The back wall of the byer, next the calf-house, is shrunk, and the morter is nearly washed out of the end wall. If the chimney flues are not properly plastered, the smoke will penetrate; they should be built with good morter, and plastered over inside. The plaster of the dwelling-house, except the dining and drawing rooms, is only two coats, whereas the specification mentions three—and the two coat work is rough and very uneven. I am of opinion that the buildings in general are done in an unworkmanlike manner, such as no builder should have put out of hand, and I cannot say that I ever before saw so bad a job. The sum contracted for (£2300) ought to have made them of the best materials; and the builder might have done them for less, and had a fair profit—I think they might have been done at £1900, with Baltic timber in the roof; which is better than American, which has been used. I can scarcely form an idea of the value of the buildings as they stand. If taken down, I think the materials may be worth £1100; I would not re-use the present timber, but sell it.

 

Cross-examined.—The inside, where the overshot is, is the milkhouse, but it shows no fault. It is common to fill up walls with loose stone, but we always make the workmen do otherwise if possible. The sum charged for the machine-house wall allowed of sufficient thickness.—Mr. PROCTOR was then examined as to the items of his valuation of £1900, and stated them in detail. He thought the specification meant Baltic timber. The stack-yard wall, charged £60 10s., might have been done for £32—2s. 6d. per yard. The cart and shed and gig-house are deficient in height.

 

By Mr. LOSH.—£2000 would, at any rate, have been sufficient to make a good job. £900 was only a fair compensation to Mr. LOWDEN for loss and damage: by letting the stables stand, it would be reduced to £750; but the roof of the stable should be renewed, and that would cost £60, making the amount £810. Mr. NIXSON said he had been six times at the building.

 

Thomas BAXTER, journeyman painter, worked at Hayclose last December, before Mr. LOWDEN went to reside there. He spoke of the wet and damp as the other witnesses. The surface of the walls was uneven; they ought to be even. Part of the painting was spoilt. Cross-examined, he said he never saw walls so damp—the account for painting was £26 odd.

 

John MAWSON, builder, Penrith, had examined the building three times. Found the back kitchen wall deficient, and not perpendicular; the south end of the dwelling-house oversets the foundation about six inches, and is not safe. The cart shed and gig-house, are lower than they should be by specification one foot nine inches. Great part of the foundations are without morter, nor did he think the dwelling-house had a sufficiency of that article. He also pronounced the walls of the sheds, byer, &c. bad, but the stables he thought pretty fair. Except these, indeed, he did not think any part of the work was good and workmanlike, and there were no means of making them what they ought to be but rebuilding; speaking of the walls, plaster, and slating, he thought £350 would make them good. When he examined the building, he compared it with the specification, and was of opinion that defendant might have made the mason, plastering, and slater's work for £1100, flagging and paving included. The actual loss to Mr. LOWDEN in that work he computed at £350. He thought the whole might have been completed for £1900. The joiners and he calculated the work together, and all came to this conclusion. They allowed nothing for Mr. LOWDEN's inconveniences.

 

Cross-examined.—I do not think the timber good, and the binding of the roof is improper. The overset at the south-end extends to two-thirds of the building. The floor in the drawing-room has given way next the gig-house wall. I never saw the dry rot in a new building; I think the beam was decayed when put in. It is not the common practice to fill up walls with rubble, especially if you wish to make good walls; and if I had taken the building I would have filled the walls with morter. I saw none there to do any good. The stone is not freestone, but you can make a good wall with taking pains. (He gave some details as to prices of particular work.) The chimney-piece in the drawing-room has shrunk from the wall. The joists in the dairy are decayed—they are covered with plaster so as to make them level. In the plastering, reeds were used in places, instead of laths, and they are not so good. I understand "best materials" to mean Memel or oak timber.

 

Thomas THOMPSON and Joseph WESTMORLAND, joiners in Penrith, called together. THOMPSON answered, and WESTMORLAND assented:—The carpenter's work is not done as it ought to be, principally from not being properly bound: in particular, the dwelling-house wants a pair of principals. The blades are bound within the walls. The footing beams, from the beam pressing on them, have raised the floor considerably. The building may stand a-while; but the blades are too long, without principals between them, and the roof will be all hollows, and will get worse till it is removed. The beam in the dairy is old oak, covered with plaster, and very bad. The floors are out of level, from the joists not being laid level, and they are all of American deal, when, according to specification, they should have been Memel or oak. The dining-room floor has shrunk; the doors are fair, but the window-shutters are bad. The window-shutters and pannels in all the rooms are decayed, on account of having been made with unseasoned wood: the flooring is open and pined in, admitting the dust, from the same cause; and the architraves are coarsely done. The back-parlour is flagged with course flags, very improper for a carpet, instead of being boarded, which would have cost more. There are no shutters in the back-kitchen. In the out buildings, above the barn, there are common slabs laid on for spars, in consequence of which the footing beam has given way and swagged. The principals being within the walls, I don't consider them proper or safe. In general the work is indifferently done—the carpenter's work very badly. The timbers could not be used again. The defect in the joiner's work we calculate at £297 16s. 8d.; but the buildings cannot be made good without being taken down; and to make a good house, by pulling down the present one, the joiner's work would cost Mr. LOWDEN £700 or £800, laying the old materials aside. The present timber is worth £339 to sell. Mr. MAWSON and we calculated that it would cost £2000 to make a good house.

 

Cross-examined.—The defect in the dairy may be from dry rot. In 1819, Memel timber cost 3s. 6d. per foot; American, 2s. 4d. Taking the specification altogether, I should have used memel timber. I could have put a Memel roof for £2 10s. per square; but taking the old timber into consideration, I could have done the flooring for 8s. 6d. per yard.

 

 

[to be continued]