ALLEGED DEFECTIVE BORE.

Matamata Record, Volume II, Issue 71, 28 February 1918, Page 2

ALLEGED DEFECTIVE BORE.

Farmer Fails in Claim. At the Matamata Magistrate's Court, on Friday, before Mr R. W. Dyer, S.M., H. E. Porritt. farmer, Turanga-o-moana (Mr G, G. Bell), brought action against Darcy Gilberd, artesian wellborer (Mr H. A. Hopkins), for the recovery of £3l paid to defendant for a bore, which plaintiff alleged was guaranteed, and which had never given satisfaction. Plaintiff further claimed £IOO damages in respect of expense incurred in purchasing and erecting plant, and loss sustained through diminished milk supply through the cows getting insufficient water. H. E. Porritt, plaintiff, gave details of the contract entered into by himself and defendant, stating that the bore was guaranteed for twelve months. The bore when completed did not work satisfactory, and on September 27th he wrote to the defendant stating that the bore was of no use to him, as it was apparently blocked with sand. Part of this letter was produced, but the part afecting the case was not before the court. Continuing, witness said he met defendant on the road, before November 20th, and asked him definitely to go back to the farm and inspect the bore. Defendant said he had not time to go, but advised him to put a mill on the well, and it would pump itself clear. He followed the advice, but got no better results. He had suffered severely in his milk supply—having increased his herd in expectation of getting sufficient water from the bore. He had also reserved a paddock, which the bore was to supply, for calves, but had had to remove the calves to a practically bare paddock. In consequence, they had suffered and depreciated in value £1 per head. Although only claiming £IOO, the damage sustained amounted to £153 10s.

To Mr Hopkins: In May, Gilberd said he would guarantee to get water on any part of the farm, and a supply for twelve months. He did not tell the manager of the* cheese factory that Gilberd had given him a month's guarantee. Gilberd had offered to transfer his plant back from Morrinsville, when finished there, to plaintiff's farm and bore deeper at additional cost. He (plaintiff) had not replied to the offer.

The magistrate said he could not see why plaintiff had not complained when he wrote to Gilbert in August. The letter (produced) dealt solely with the payment for the bore, no mention being made of any fault. H. Rollett, Peria, was examined by Mr Bell as to the correctness of the figures in connection with damages claimed. His general opinion was that plaintiff's figures were not over the mark.

G. Davison, farmer, Turanga-o-moana gave similar evidence. He had a bore put down by defendant and the latter had promised that if it choked he would come back and attend to it, provided that witness moved his plant back. Joseph Price, blacksmith, said he had had better experience of bores than any man in Matamata. He had examined the bore, and found that the water was not coming through fast enough. The sand in the pipe was preventing the water coming through. Darcy Gilberd (defendant) said he had put down more than a hundred bores in the Valley. On May 10th plaintiff told him he wanted another bore put in, because he was putting on more cows. Witness mentioned terms, which varied as to charge per foot, per hour, or a lump sum for permanent water. He told him he generally worked on the half and half terms, and submitted accounts of adjacent farmers. No arrangements were definitely made but he handed plaintiff his printed terms. Ho again saw him in June when he went on with the job, the arrangement being" on the usual terms " as per the printed circular. He explained that he stated to plaintiff that a water diviner would not be of much use ; that there would be water alright, but a diviner would only be of use if he could state where the sand was.

He explained to plaintiff that in the event of the pipe blocking he would go back and bore deeper, providing plaintiff paid for the extra work. He had given no guarantee ; it had not been mentioned. It was common for him to offor a guarantee, but on special terms. Mr Hopkins, for the defendant, maintained that a guarantee had not been established. He quoted " Halsbury " which said a contract, which could not be completed within one year, would not be binding, unless in writing.

His Worship said that the establishment of the .guarantee was the crux of the question. He could not get over the fact that the- plaintiff found fault with the bore in August and paid for it afterwards —in September. To his mind no guarantee had been established. He non - suited plaintiff, who was also ordered to paj costs.