pierced; that the roof leaked and stained the walls beneath so that they ‘could not be finished in white; that the brick in the walls were not cleaned in accordance with specifications; that the fire escapes were given only one coat of paint instead of two, as required; that the area walls were improperly built; that the defendant was compelled to rebuild one of them; that the iron guards were not fastened with expansion bolts as required; that the plaintiff failed to soak and tamp the fills around the walls as required; that he failed to remove a large pile of rubbish at the rear of building; that the floors were improperly laid and were in bad condition; that they had valleys in them, were not drawn tight, and the carpenters used too large nails; that the floors were improperly varnished; that the varnishing was done at a time when the building was dusty, through carpenters and other workmen about, so as to occasion the varnish to be filled with dust and dirt; that the stucco work in the vestibule was put on wrong, the tile floor left unclean, the plastering was uneven, and the doorframes and doors were improperly fitted; that the chute doors in the basement were too small and were not fitted; that the metal windows were too small for the brick openings; that much glass was broken; that the canopy had a roof that leaked like a sieve; that the cistern leaked when the plaintiff left the job; that the cement floor in the basement was crumbly and uneven; that there is a bulge in the partition between the dining room and the lobby; and that there is no way in which the building may be made to appear as the plans and specifications require.
In behalf of the plaintiff, evidence was adduced, through an architect and a contractor, both of many years’ experience, that they examined the building in May, 1918 that its construction is in substantial compliance with the plans and specifications, with minor exceptions and small minor defects; that the roof was all right and the brickwork was done in a good and workmanlike manner; that the warping of the doors was unavoidable through the kind used; that the doors fitted well and the flooring was good; that no stains were noticed on the walls and ceilings; that there was nothing wrong with the. vestibule; that the swelling in the floor may have been caused by dampness; that it was improper to use oakum for caulking window frames; that no doorframes were found not set according to the plans; that the roof did not show any buckling of the roof boards; that there is a deviation in the wall between the lobby and the dining room, but it is not a deviation from the plans and specifi-
