An Expensive Sewing Machine

Feilding Star, Volume XII, Issue 106, 28 February 1891, Page 4

An Expensive Sewing Machine

'"and* indigestion for eleven yearsrnererknowing what it was to be free from misery and pain.i I procured Clements Tonic and the effect was simply marvello.ns.i Three bottles removed all pain and suffering, my, appetite came back I and iVould eat a good hearty meal and enjoy it and whal was more. I could digest it afterwards without that terrible tired feeling which always followed my meals before taking Clements Tonic I continued the medicine"and took altj« getlier thirteen bottles, and honestly believe it has'been the making of a; new system for me and that I hnve gained by the use of Clements Tonic a new lease of life. I shall always praise and recommend it having personally proved beyond all question its wonderful efficacy.

(, KM ■CiTKI) I'RTCSS ASSOCIATION.) I.WEiiCAKGiiiL, February 25. In the I e^deiit Magistrates Court to-du'v an actioi. was brought for the \liire of a sewing machine under peculiar .circumstances, the claim ."b?*H& fo . r J^^-l9. a j. while the actual "value of the machine was £11. The . machine had been hired at 2s 6d a \week to become the property of the ; hirer when the payments totalled .ill. He paid up to £6 15s in .January, 1886, and rent was claimed fciuce that date, plaintiff not having resumed possession of the property. Counsel for the defence contended that all the Singer Company was teutitled to was- the balance of the value of the machine, £4 os. For the .-.plaintiffs it was urged that as defendant had never exorcised the right of -purchase, as the machine might have been valueless, and as plain tiffs 'had Veen kept out of the money all these years, they ought to recover the r,eut. ." "An offer had been made to pay the .balance of the purchase money land blithe costs, but it waa refused by "plaintiffs. Mr liawson, R.M., said : the agreement was perfectly clear '-Had the defendant gone on paying the machine would have belonged to fimTiu .1888 ; he did not do so,, and Was therefore. liable for rent, even although that was more, than the value of the oiachiue! Judgment would be for plaintiffs', with costs, £3 15s. |The machine had thus ' cost the defendant . over £36. I