Carlisle Patriot, 10 Sep 1825 - Arbitration Cause - LOWDEN v. NIXSON (4)

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

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

 

IMPORTANT ARBITRATION CAUSE.

LOWDEN v. NIXSON.

 

[continued]

 

Joseph THOMPSON, slater, Lazonby, deposed that the slating of all the premises was very badly done, the slates small, and the lap insufficient. The laths are riven, and of the worst sort; they should have been sawn, and nailed on.

 

Cross-examined.—When at Hayclose he said the stables would do.

 

William SANDERSON.—I am a Bridgemaster for Cumberland, and much acquainted with buildings. The dwelling at Hayclose is very badly done. Above the cellar it is dangerous, the beams are so decayed—a ton weight on the floor would be in danger of going down. A great part of the dwelling-house walls are bad, some parts six or seven inches out of perpendicular. The morter is badly mixed and has a good deal of soil in it, and ought not to have been used, as there is good sand within one hundred yards distance. The foundation overlaps at the south end, and the north end is very badly walled for want of through-stones, and improperly jointed with upright joints; and the wood is inferior. If I had been inspector, I would never have paid one shilling for it, on account of the bad work. The foundations of the outbuildings are laid dry without morter; the walls want through-stones very much. If I had been the contractor I should have told the workmen, that I could not get a shilling for the job. The stables are the best, though there are faults in the walling of them. I do not call American fir "best materials." In the roof, the timbers are too long, wanting principals between them, and the slate wants band. On the whole, the work is exceeding badly done; I would not have passed it, nor signed for a single shilling; and had I been inspector I would have stopped the works. The chimneys are also bad; I saw smoke come out of the walls in the back kitchen, when there was no fire in it. I don't see how the job can be made a good one, without pulling down.

 

Cross-examined.—I have been there three times; I only saw this smoke once. An ordinary room ought to bear three ton weight. I put my knife into the decayed beam two or three inches, the length of the blade, and it would have gone farther. The greatest deficiency of through-stones is in the barn. The principal part of the timbers are too long; if the beams are thicker than common, still they should not be set so far apart. I took the roof off my own house at Skiprigg, which had been built four or five years, and shortened the timbers. I have superintended Mr. BROUGHAM's buildings; both American and Memel timber were there used. I used American at the Methodist meeting; the same was used at Eden Terrace. It is not easy to turn water in exposed situations, but it may be done.

 

Re-examined.—The Methodist meeting was by agreement built with American timber; but if "best materials" are stipulated for, I should use oak or Memel. When building in an exposed situation, the masons should be cautious. The beam, spoken of, must have been decayed before it was put in. Mr. BLAMIRE of the Oaks employed me to make a building, which I pulled down and charged nothing for, it having been as bad as that at Hayclose. The walls of rubble should not be filled with loose stones, but with stone and morter. I never saw such bad morter.

 

Thomas RANDLESON, of Carlisle, examined.—I followed the business of a builder upwards of 20 years, and have since kept up my experience by inspecting buildings, &c. Having particularly examined Hayclose, I can speak of it. The south end of the dwelling-house overhangs the foundation, and is unsafe; the front of the back kitchen overhangs three inches and a half, and is also unsafe. The byer wall, next the stack yard, is very much out of perpendicular; the machine-house is much shaken and cracked; and the whole of the walls where I tried are improperly filled with chips, without lime: this applies to all the buildings: I tried them in 14 or 15 different places. I never knew this done while I was in business, it ought to have been filled with morter. The plaster in the house is very rough. The foundations, underground, are without lime; no builder, doing his duty, should make them so. The wall between the barn and byer is out of the plumb from top to bottom, and waved in different places. The stables are pretty fair. In all or in the greatest part of the other houses, the morter is very bad, being mixed with soil instead of sand, for when it is exposed it washes out. The buildings, generally speaking, are not done in a workmanlike manner. If such walls had been mine, they should have come down, even if finished. I have drawn up an estimate: they cannot be made good under £300 or £320; that is, taking down only certain parts and putting them up again, allowing every thing in favour of Mr. NIXSON, and letting the stables stand.—Mr. RANDLESON spoke of the foundations in terms similar to those expressed by the other witnesses, and agreed with Mr. MAWSON and Mr. THOMPSON that the whole might probably be made comparatively good at £1100: no less sum would serve for a good job. In this estimate, nothing was allowed to Mr. LOWDEN for inconvenience, but it is founded on the supposition that Mr. LOWDEN used the old materials as he thought fit.

 

Cross-examined, Mr. RANDLESON said he thought the buildings might have been erected originally for £1900. He entered upon various details as to charges. In the specification, the red slate was charged 9 guineas per rood, while the price of it is only £6 10s., and there were 19 roods of red used in all, and 16 roods of blue.

 

John GRAHAM and Joseph SCOTT, joiners, Carlisle, examined together.—The buildings at Hayclose, they said, were in general very deficient, except the stables. The timber used was yellow American pine and old oak, and the work was ill done; according to the specification, it should have been Memel, Baltic, or Riga. There should have been another pair of principals in the roof of the dwelling-house, for the want of which the roof is bad and liable to give way and swag. The floors are rough, not level, and very open jointed—the servants' room is 3½ inches out of the level. The drawing room floor is quite gone and settled to the fire-place. In the dining-room, the boards have pined, and want re-laying. In fact, all the floors should be re-laid, having been made of unseasoned wood. All the windows and shutters are shameful: the former may be shaken to pieces; by the agreement the shutters were to have been framed, but they are not. The doors are all of American deal, but are the best work on the premises. On account of the improper binding of the timbers of the roof, they have already swagged very much. The buildings, as they now stand, are worth £1310: to put the joiner's work only in proper repair would cost £297. They could have made a good job of the whole, with Baltic timber, for £1900, taking the old materials as far as they would go—carpenter's work £800; the rest £1100. The buildings cannot be made good unless they are taken down, except the stables; but even the walls of them are not well filled. The deficiency is £700, not including inconvenience.

 

Cross-examined.—Memel timber in 1819 was £2 5s. or £2 10s. per square. "Best materials" certainly mean Baltic timber. Better than one-half of the timbers are old, and these, to use in the building, were worth £300. The walls, in their opinion, are worth little or nothing.

 

Thomas DENT, carpenter, Carlisle, spoke to the same effect, as to the carpenter's work and the slating. The work did not accord with the specification. The wood in Mr. HODGSON's house is much better than that at Hayclose.

 

 

[to be continued]