REPAIRS TO ARMATURE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 76, 22 December 1917, Page 6

REPAIRS TO ARMATURE

RESERVED JUDGMENT

In tlio Magistrate's Court vesterday afternoon Mr. \f. G. Eiddell, S.M., delivered reserved judgment iu tho case in which Walls and Co., Ltd., for whom Mr. A. W. 'Blair vppeavetl, claimed from E. .M. Page, licensee of the Grand Hotel, tho sum of £'100 2s. 4d. for work done'and material supplied in repairing defendant's clectric lift. Of'the amount claimed i:'i 16s. lid. 'was for labour, and tho 'balance for material supplied and -jther expenses. On January 2 last the plaintiff 'firm was instructed by defendant to attend to tho lift. After inspection the''-armature was removed to the workshop, where it was found that' a great many of tho coils were badly scorched, and sbmo of them burnt out-. Defendant -was informed of the condition of the armature, and was lold that plaintiffs had only enough wire, to reU6'v the coils burnt out, anil that no new wire could bo obtained in Wellington. Defendant -was further advised that owing to the wire slortago plaintiffs might uso some of the old wire re-conditioned in order to expedite the work, and that there was a ■risk of its not .proving .a success. It was arranged that tho work should be proceeded with and completed a< soon as possible. Tho result was -not successful. 'On examination it was found that some of tho old coils -were again 'burnt out, and the situation was as bad as when jplaintiffs were first called in. _ .It was then, found -necessary to re-wind the armature with new'wire, which was obtained from Christ church. After'dealing with -the daw ton tho liabilities of contractors,' the -Magistrate -said that defendant stated that die accepted no risk, "but 'left 'tho Tvhrile matter of tho repairs to 'the -Judgment of tho plaintiffs. If that were so, tho Magistrate did .not -think that plaintiffs would have adopted voluntarily 'the cffurßo'thcy'followed. Under these .circumstances defendant must bo held liablo for the cost of the first rt-wirfl-ing (£BS Is.-lid:): 1 'As : to'the 'second attempt, the evidence showed that new wire was obtained, and the work carried out principally by 'plaintiffs' 'foreman. « .-Defendant was urging expedition, and plaintiffs, recognising that working overtime was impairing 'the "efficiency of the 'employees, , and that it was a mistako to hurry the work, wrote to tho defendant to this effect, at the same time disclaiming responsibility if defendant -insisted 'upon urgency. The re-winding apparently l'iwas '.then '.continued at high pressure, i On completion 'the armature was again tested, and found unsatisfactory. Next 'morning Messrs. Turnbull and Jones's - expert was called ;in, and lie succeeded un 'getting the lift 10 work temporarily. plaintiffs immediately wrote to defendant, .complaining -that I they had been supplanted by another! firm, ithat ithoy ;haa Ibeen .put to a great deal of trouble and uconvoiiience 'in-order to 'undertake the work, and stating that they were prepared ■without '-prejudice 'to forego -their :right to complete, if their account for .work ■already done was promptly ipaid. , The expert of Turnbull :-and Jones found faults in the armature, • >whicli must have been duo to defective workmanship iby .plaintiffs''foreman, vho was -suffering from exhaustion, paused by continuous work. Tliis'defeotive workmanship "'caused'''defendant extra expense, and tho only_ question vas whether defendant, having prevented .plaintiffs from .completing the contract, 'could set '.off jpart of this extra expom® against the amount charged by plaintiffs .for the second re-winding. Defendant stated that no use could bo made of plaintiffs' work, and that new wire had to'''be'found for the third rc'winding, -'and the: wholo of this • cost '.woiild;ihavo ihnd -to be borne by 'Plaintiffs before theirepairs were completed. Judgment was given for plaintiffs for £55 'Is. lid., costs -of 'Court -.'.2, and solicitor's fee £3 '15s.