A SEPARATOR BOWL

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 2, Issue 133, 8 March 1940, Page 5

A SEPARATOR BOWL

CAUSE OF LONG ARGUMENT VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF A separator bowl was the cause of long argument in the Magistrate's Court on Wednesday, when Eric William Mathews claimed that: Frederick William M?yo should pay for the use of the bowl, the loan of which had been extended to defendant's sharemilkers. Mr B. S. Barry appeared for Mathews and Mayo was represented by Mr L. Buddie. I Mr Barry said that Mathews was in business in Whakatane as milking machine and separator agent and litter and in August, IMB, had lent a separator bowl to defendant, i The custom Avas to lend to l'armeis likely to buy new machines or have servicing effected. Defendant had purchased a different make of separator. Eric William Mathews saicl he had first lent the bowl in the early part of the 1938 season. During the current season a new sharemilker had called on him and told him that trouble was being experienced with the separator. Witness said he lent the bowl again but it was not returned. He had rendered accounts every month but had not received an answer. There was no charge made for loan bowls where a sale was made or servicing done. Answering Mr Buddie, witness said he had not made it clear tlliat a charge would be made should there be no sale or. servicing. He had never spoken to Mr Mayo as he had not had the opportunity. Non-Suit Refused.

Leslie Ernest Richard Littlejohn, representative of the Alfa Laval < Company in Whakatane, gave e\ iclence and at this stage Mr Buddlte asked for a non-suit on the grounds that there was no contract. The Magistrate: There was no con tract, but in fairness, there was a service rendered and why shouldn t he pay for it? Frederick William Mayo said he lived in Auckland. He had hatH word from his sharemilker about the separator bowl and called on the Alfa Laval Company in Auckland. He had there been informed that it was not the policy of the Company to sell or hire bowls. He had installed a separator of another make and had instructed his sharemilker to return the other bowl as soon as possible. Cross-examined by Mr Barry on the score of reports received from the farm, witness said that if a cow died the fact was communicated to him but such a thing as a separaVtor breakdown would not be reported although he supposed it just as serious. He had never written to Mathews disputing the accounts rendered and had never referred them to the sharemilker. Evidence that there had been no mention of payment for the loan of the bowl was given by Reginald Edwin Gower, sharemilker for Mayo Cross-examined he said he had not informed his employer that he had borrowed the bowl. The Magistrate gave judgment in equity and good conscience for the amount claimed, £1 17s 6d, with costs £1 7s, and solicitor's fee £1 Is.