Coffman v. Board of Architectural Examiners

PULLEN, P. J.

This proceeding arises upon a petition to review a judgment of the State Board of Architectural Examiners . of the Northern District, suspending petitioner herein from practicing as an architect for a period of thirty days, for alleged dishonest practice.

The complaint, which was filed by Nelle U. Branch, for whom petitioner had designed a residence, charged that he was guilty of dishonest practice in connection with the plans for such residence and specified certain acts and omissions as evidence thereof, as follows:

“Substitutions were made in practically every phase of work on the house.. The work was so slighted throughout as to cheapen the building materially. There is a question as to the actual safety of the structure.

“The house vibrates in the wind, and the floors shake under ordinary tread. A substitution of wooden underpinnings was made in place, of concrete foundation, as specified.

“The exterior woodwork and interior trim are Oregon pine, instead of Redwood.

“This is warping and shrinking badly.

“2x6 floor joists were substituted for 2x8.

[345]

“With sufficient underpinning, floor girders were smaller than specified.

“Ceiling rafters are 2x4 instead of 2x6, with long spans, and are insufficient to support the ceiling. Roof rafters are light 2x4 size and surfaced 35" center, instead of 24 as specified.

“The sheathings under the shingles are 1x4—4½" space. This is very light.

“Local gravel was used instead of crushed rock, as specified.

“Gutters and downspouts are insufficient, and drains were not provided as specified.

“Stucco is in very bad condition, and is not weatherproof, due to the fact that it was not surfaced with two coats of Government whitewash as specified.

“The owner charges that no architectural supervision was given by Mr. Coffman, who has accepted his fee as supervising architect.