SEPARATOR DISPUTE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4650, 18 January 1924, Page 2

SEPARATOR DISPUTE.

- PAEROA COURT CASE. V ' ""W VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF. At the Magistrate’s Court at Paeroa on Tuesday, before Mr J. G. L. Hewitt. S.M-, Geo. White., farmer; of Paeroa, claimed £l5 15s from C. th Millar, farmer, also, of Paeroa. Mr C. N. O’Neill appeared for plaintiff and Mr A. G. Gorrie for defendant. Plaintiff stated that on or about October 15 last he purchased from defendant an lowa separator for £l9 cash, and defendant guaranteed that should the separator not be in good running order, he would refund the j £lO. After several trials the machine, proved to be out of order, and was returned to defendant on October 29, but defendant had failed to return the £lO, which was now claimed, plus the cost of inspection by a mechanic, 15?., and general damages, £5, making a total of £l5 15s. . iPlaintiff detailed how he had arranged with a mechanic to inspect the machine, and that the resulv shewed the separator to be in an unsatisfactory condition and not fit to use. To Mr Gorrie plaintiff said he had been prepared to take defendant’s word that the machine was in working order. The reason why he had not returned the separator to defendant immediately was because he was anxiour- to give defendant a reasonable chance to look at the macliiiW: ami put it in running order. He had made no mechanical adjustments to the machine during the time he had it in his possession. To Mr O’Neill plaintiff said that he had no experience .with the lowa separator, but had worked with ail Alfa-Laval machine for some time. Tbo test of the cream as supplied by the Dairy Company was no indication that the. separator was functioning ■■ correctly. G. R Davidson, engineer, Paeroa, said that on October 29., at the request of plaintiff, he had examined the separator and found that it was running stiffly. On taking the machine to pieces he found the lower bushing was worn, the cream screws badly worn, and the discs not functioning as they should do. He ■was pr-pared to swear that the machine woe not in working order. After the examination witness, accompanied by plaintiff, went across to defendant’s farm and told him of the defects in the separator. To His Worship witness said it would cost about 25,s to repair the separator, provided it was taken into a proper workshop. Cross-examined by Mr Gorrie witness said that in his opinion the mechanism had not been tampered with during the time plaintiff had the machine. There was a sufficiency of oil about the parts to ensure proper working. THE DEFENCE. diaries Campbell Millar, defendant in the action, detailed the arrangement that had been entered into for the purchase of the separator and the delivery of the machine and tse payment for it. When plaintiff complained that the separator wals .stiff defendant suggested that he should get a mechanic to have a look over it, and if the machine was found to be unsatisfactory witness would stand the cost of the inspection, but plaintiff at that time refused to let an expert look at the machine, as he did not want it under any circumstances. Witness stated that the cream screws at least had been damaged while in plaintiff’s possession. His reason for disposing of the separator after using it for two seasons was because he had increased the number of cows an 1 the lowa was not large enough to cope with the increase of milk. H: was satisfied that when plaintiff purchased the separator it was in satisfactory working order. Cross-examined by Mr O’Neill defendant said that he worked the farm with his brother, but he was the senior partner. A new part for the machine had been supplied at plaintiff’s request and was placed fn position by the brother. Norman A. Millar, farmer and partner with defendant, detailed the sale of thfi separator. Witness said he was of the opinion that the cream smews had been tampered with after the machine had left defendant’s farm. In summing up His Worship said that from the evidence of Davidsonit was shown that it was not from any act of plaintiff’s that the machine was unsatisfactory. Plaintiff had not delayed in making his complaints known to defendant, and to a large extent had protected his rights. These and other circumstances had to be considered in favour of plaintiff. . The finding was in favour of plaintiff foi the sum of £lO. being the cost of separator. 15s inspection fee. and £1 general damages; also costs amounting to £4 5s were allowed.