A CHALLENGE.

Hokitika Guardian, 17 March 1924, Page 4

A CHALLENGE.

ON USUAL COURT CASE. DUNEDIN, March 13 At the Magistrate’s Court to-day, before Mr Bartholomew, S.M., Reid and Gray claimed from George Gray (Waimate) a sum of £4 mentioned in a challenge issued by defendant, which plaintiffs claimed they had'wott. The lion John MacGregor appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Hay (instructed by Messrs Hamilton and Fitch (Waimate) for the defendant. Mr MacGregor said this case was one to which both the parties attached more importance that one would expect from the amount of the claim, which was only £4. The case arose out of certain correspondence that took place between the parties. Defendant was the owner of an old Reid and Gray plough. In May last lie •cut it to the makers for repairs is Dunedin. The firm said the repairs would cost £5 Is 6d. Towards the end of May defendant wrote a letter enclosing a cheque for the amount, and proposing a kind of challenge. He would pay the expenses of the firm’s foreman and blacksmith up to £4 to come and inspect the plough working, the firm to pay the expenses if any. repairs or alterations were found necessary. Counsel would show that no alteration was necessary, and also that defendant had admitted that he was satisfied. All that took place when Hie firm’s representatives visited ihe plough at Waimate was a slight adjustment of the coulter. The account now sued upon was for the £4 mentioned in the letter of challenge. The expenses of the man whom the firm sent to Waimate to examine the plough were something more than that.

George Gray, a director of the plaintiff eomoany, gave evidence and by means of a large model explained to bis Worship exactly what was meant by ‘ setting” a plough.

Augustus Nelson, plough fitter, with thirty-two years’ experience with Reid and Gray, described what lie bad done to defendant’s plough. He afterwards worked the plough on defendant’s farm and fomul it doing very satisfactory work. Mr Gray’s only complaint was about the weight of the plough. When Mr Leash, who visited the farm with witness, said to defendant that lie must report that the plough was working satisfactorily, defendant said, ‘‘lt must have been imagination on my part.” Afterwards, in August, defendant told witness it ira snot working too satisfactorily and that lie could not understand it.

To Mr Hay: He denied that the plough lifted out of the ground when ho tested it during the afternoon. Evidence was given by .T. R. l.casli on the lines of that given by Nelson and by D. ,1. Cameron as to expenses.

Defendant gave evidence that the plough jumped out of the ground and did not make a proper furrow.

'l'he evidence of two witnesses heard at Waimate to the same effect was handed it.

The Magistrate said there was an absolute contradiction, which could not he got over, between the evidence of Nelson and l.casli on the one band and of the defendant on the other as to what happened when the plough was tested. The question was which was the more credible. He came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs bad satisfied the terms of llio agreement and that if was shown that the plough was all right at the time of the lest. Plaintiffs were, therefore, entitled to recover the Cl expenses, Court, costs .Cl Is fid, and solicitor’s fee (£1 65.)