A DISPUTED ORDER.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2263, 7 August 1908, Page 1

A DISPUTED ORDER.

MACHINERY AGENT’S CLAIAI

At tlio Stipendiary Magistrates Court yestorday morning, boloro Mr. W. A.'Barton, S.M., some time was occupied iu tho hearing of a case in which Cecil Bortrnm DoLautour (Mr. Stock) sought to recover from Oh ns. Taylor (Mr. T. A. Coleman) tho sum of £l7, being the prico of a band saw macliino, alleged to havo been ordered by defendant from plaintiff. Cecil Bertram DoLautour stated that the machine was ordered by defendant from a catalogue in September last, and was delivered in November. Alterations to the machine wero carried out by witness at bis own expense. Accounts had been sent to defendant from time to time, and after a peremptory notice iiad been served on tho defendant he wrote witness stating that tho machine .was unsatisfactory, and not the ono he had originally ordered. To .Mr. Coloman: The transaction was carried out by his manager, Air. McMillan, and ho (witness) had never seen the machine in question. Newman 'McMillan stited that the macliino was ordered through him. The one supplied was tho same as that ordered bv defendant, and nothing was said .about taking the machine on trial. Defendant never disputed tho account, and never claimed that the macliino was unsatisfactory after tho repairs wero finished in February. Witness interviewed defendan t regarding payment of tho account, when he asked him to allow tho account to stand over for a time. To Mr. Coleman: He agreed with defendant to effect alteration to the machine. He did not try to sell tho machine in question to a Air. Smith for £l2. The price agreed upon for the machine was £l7, which was an “Austral” as ordered. This concluded the case for the plaintiff and All - . Coleman briefly addressed the Court for defendant.

Henry Davies, engineer, stated that ho repaired tho machine in question at defendant’s shop. He would not consider the machine good enough to be worked every day. AVitness described what, ill his opinion, wero the deficiencies of the machine. He never saw the machine running except on one occasion, hut it was too light for the majority of defendant’s work Tho breaking of a saw might condemn a machine. The guide (produced) was suitable for Jin. blades for heavy work. To Air. Stock: Tho machine was a cheap one, anjl only for light work. For ordinary cabinet-making work a machine costing about £3O would be required. To Air. Coleman: The guide was for Jin. saws but the machine was not suitable for that size.

Charles Taylor gave evidence at to tlio purchase of a machine at catalogue price for £24, to come from Australia. "When tho machine arrived witness said lie would not take as it was not the machine lie had ordered. He had ordered a machine from Fay and Egan’s catalogue. Mr. AloAlillan camo and examined the machine and said it was not up to what was ordered. AVitness said ho would not use it and called AlcAlillan’s attention to tho fact of the macliino having no namo .Air AlcAlillan said that ho would like witness to put it up in tlio meantime, and lie would try and get tho machine that had been ordered. AVitness agreed to this course and Air. AlcAlillan said ho would try and place it with somo other person in town. A man named Joo. Davis was present at the conversation. The machine was set up, hut owing to a deficient table was unable to be worked for five months. Tlio factory Inspector would not allow tlio machine to be worked until safety guides were provided, and lie had only used tlio machine about three or four bom's altogether. Six saws had been broken in ono hour by the machine. AYitness complained every week to Air., Ale Alillan that tho machine was unsuitable and said lie would not pay for it. To Air. Stock: Ho was quite sure that the machine was no.t what lie ordered. He wrote his name on the machine he ordered, in the illustrated catalogue. The machine was placed on the wooden floor on a block 3ft by 6ft. The table did not come to hand until five months after tho arrival of the v macliine.. The screws came loose on tlio table and flew up. Accounts were rendered for the machine on three occasions, but not since February. Air. AlcAlillan never asked for the money, and ho,- witness, wrote asking that tlio machine be taken away.

Hen ay Hobbins, cabinet-maker, in defendants employ, said that the machine avas most unsatisfactory and had broken six saws in an hour. To Air. Stock: He did not know a great deal about mechanics, and defective saws might be tlio cause of tho trouble.

His worship said lie would, like to hear the evidence of the man Davis whom defendant said avas now- in Dannevirke. Air. Stock asked leave to re-call his avitnesses to show that the neav table for tho machine and other repairs avere completed by the end of February, and also that they had nea rer had a Fay and Egan catalogue in their possession. His AVorship agreed to this course, and Messrs, do Lautour and AlcAlillan both, in evidence, corroborated those statements.

The Court adjourned for lunch at this stage, and on resumption Air. Stock produced receipts showing that the;repairs to the machine were executed beforo February 17.

Air. Coleman explained that his client was unable to produce the letter referred to in evidence as a letterbook,avas evidently missing. In the meantime . they had discovered another avitness avho had heard conversations between defendant and McMillan!

Mr. Stock objected to this evidence being taken, and drew' attention to the fact that defendant had savorn in evidence that lie had a copy of the letter to plaintiff. His AVorship decided t<> heir tlio oxtra evidence this liioriiing, 'ami, while doing so, commented on the unsatisfactory nature of the case.