A MACHINERY CLAIM.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2368, 8 December 1908, Page 5

A MACHINERY CLAIM.

JUDGMENT RESERVED

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, before iMr. W. A. Barton, S.M., the case of Cecil Bertrand deLautour v. Charles Taylor, which. -Is is been adjourned several times, was again mentioned. This is a claim for £l7 10s, the price of a band-saw machine supplied by the plaintiff to defendant The defence previously sot up was to the effect that the machine was not up to standard, and did not correspond with the machine ordered from catalogue by defendant. ' Mr. G. Stock appeared for the " plaintiff, and -defendant was represented by Mr. T. Alston Coleman, w'i-o, yesterday morning, called further evidence fn an attempt to show' that the band-saw was practically -useless to defendant. Win. Welihj builder, said that about six or seven months ago he wanted some circular work, -done by defendant. Some of the work would require to be done by a band-saw, and after conversation with defendant, he was unable to get the work done, and was compelled to send to Napier. • To Mr. Stock: Two or three different machines were required for the work. . John Scott, joiner, gave evidence of wanting some brackets cut by a band-saw, and of having sent it to defendant, but the work was returned undone. John Aitken, a young man in -de- : fendant’s employ/-said that when the band-saw arrived on the premises Air. McMillan and a man named Davis were present. He heard defendant ** say to AlcAlillan “This is not the machine I ordered, and at is no good t:> me.” Since the band-saw had been installed many efforts had_been made to use it, but the saws were constantly breaking, and it had been of little use for turning out work. To Air. Stock: He was not asked to give evidence at the first hearing of the case. He was constanly in the shop, and some of the work on the furniture was done by the handsaw. Ever since defendant got the machine he was using it off an-d on at intervals, but not quite every day. Thomas Aliller Alunro, foreman for Messrs Clayton Bros., gave similar evidence ,as to being unable to get certain band-saw work done by defendant. He saw the machine and considered that it was too light and iiimsy for defendant’s work. To” Air. Stock:' He could not say if the machine had been worked, but on abopt fulf-a-dozen occasions defendant bad borrowed his (witness’) jig saw to do certain work. This concluded the case, and after both counsel had addressed the Court, His Worship intimated that he would take time to consider his decision.