The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-12-27
Former Inspector Al
lowed Frame Wall in
Brick Dwelling.
APPROVED PLANS
VIOLATING CODE
Douglas E. Taylor Seeks to Re-
cover $4,000 From Harvey c.
Brown, Because House Was
Represented as of Standard
Construction, Conform
ing to Regulations.

Failure to carry out the plain pro-
visions OF the building laws OF Rich
mond on the part Of John +. Butler
while deputy building inspector. are
alleged in a damage suit docketed fer
trial in the Law and Equity Court.
The case will probably come to trial
during the January term OF the court.
The suit was brought by Douglas t..
Taylor ahainst Harvey - Brown. for
damages laid at s. 900. and involves
the proper construction OF the dwell
ing house at 2s06 West Grace Street,
the present home of Mr.. Taylor.
What the Records Show.
The house in question was erected
by Mr. Brown in 1910 on plans ap-
proved by Mr.. Butler while a deputy
building Inspector. In the course Of
its erection it was six times inspected
by Butler. who certified to its proper
completion. on May %. 1911. Mr.
Brown sold the house and lot TO Doug
las r.. Taylor, who purchased il TO be
used as his own home. In his decla-
ration. Mr.. Taylor sets forth that the
property was represented to him as
being of standard construction, built
according to the Richmond Building
Code. on plans approved by deputy
building Inspector. and with properly
supervised construction The house is
on the north side of Grace Street, be-
tween Robinson and Mulberry Streets.
After taking possession of the prem
ises. Mr.. Taylor says in his declara-
ton that he found 20 his great sur
prise that large part of the eastern
wall was of wooden construction, COW
cred over with metal; this side having
the effect OF bay window, running
through two stories, and as to foun-
dations. material and workmanship, it
is claimed TO be of unsound construc-
/ ton. not in accordance with the Build
ing Code of Richmond. Because of this
use of wooden walls in a brick build
ing located in the brick district, Mr.
Taylor brings suit for recovery OF
$4,000 OF the purchase money.
PIans Approved by Butler.
Examination of the records in the
Building Inspectors Office show that
the plans for this building were fled
on December IS, 1910; that Il was 10
Gated in the district assigned TO Mr..
Butler. then d deputy building inspec-
tor: that ne passed the plans and is
sued the permit on January :. 1911.
According to Mr.. Buffers work card.
turned in and made a part of the off,
cial record of the Office work was
commenced January .. 1911. Mr.. But
Ter inspected its progress six times AT
intervals of about 4 week. signing his
name on the card after each inSpeo-
ton. the fnaI inspection and approval
OF the building having been on March
>. 1911 Mr. Butler was discharged
for falling To report for duty and
drunkenness on March :. 1911 1t 70
also q matter of record that Mr. Brow1
who is considerable investor ana
builder. proposed to build d nunbe9
of other houses in the western pare
of the city on plans similar to those
Of the house in question: that the de-
fect in the use Of wooden construction
was caught by Building Inspector Beck
himself. and the plans changed and
the further houses erected with brick
walls in accordance with the Building
Code.
violation Of Building Code.
section IS of the Building Code II
headed Walls OF Buildings other than
frame or wo"d." and reads:
The walls OF all buildings, other
than frame or wood buildings. shall
be constructed Of stone. brick, Port
land cement concrete. iron or steel. or
II approved by the Building inspector.
other hard iucombustible material All
buildings shall be inciosed on all sides
cent rear % the main top story above
wing OF dwelling houses which may
be Of frame covered with slate or
metal
II will b. recalled that Mr. Folkes.
Of the Big Three" now in control
Of the city's new $4,000 Administrative
Board. in his written statement, given
crt I'm defense OF Mr.. Butler. admitted
that the boards appointee had 10 tech
uirsi training other than as brick
LAYER. and admitted that he had been
properly discharged for drunkenness
NJ FolSes defended the boards Sp-
pointec by sayins that in the erection
Of htr buildings he could employ out
al. .-chi,erts 70 advise him where
ht- o~, education would not enable
him 10 pass On plans Mr.. Folkes
said.
.rpcn residence vort his work -
~, o,,r.fton~d hut has been commend
cd. Thi- o. . strong point On NJ But
Ter. favor; .one OF our citizens spend
q lifetime trying 60 Ert the money
"a busIs home 60 their IISiog. ara
they will bail9 only one. sud ccrtsinty
no one has proven hinseIf more ausif-
a~d IN this particular Kind Of -up~r-
Vision 20 protect this class ef prop
erty from fraudulent work ny eon-
tractor. fhnn Nr. Buticr-"
t.Ixr~ small Inv~<ter No fr"tc~ues-
3 wealthy investor. VINO has Seen az
.~riate. with the construction 90 sev-
.-.f ia-re buildings IN The past few
years. referring O. the appointment OF
" Butler. said yesterday.
aTt matters little 10 ne pe7onsiiy-
sfwavS employ a skilled architect.
and have NY own inspector constantly
or ny briidsnEs 10 see that 7 get en-
srtiv what the plans call FOR. bet u
seems 70 re that the eupioynefst 81
~ Hi-fraired or Incompetent nan a.
citv Building Inspector would have
fust the opposite eject from which Mr.
Foxes has stated. When man has
ut the savings 81 a lifetime insc th>
erection % = home he wants ire eutld-
inr % Be properly coustract>n sst>is
planned and carried out according -