MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 1318, 31 October 1914, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

The monthly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held before Mr J. W. Poyntou S.M., yesterday. UNDIU'ENDE’D CASKS. Judgment for plaintiffs was entered up in the following undefended cases: Veitch and Allan v. Thomas Giugell, claim ns id, costs 30s 6d ; W, Nye v. E. Mahauariki, ros, costs 20s ; J. Richardson v. D. Kennedy, £2 16s sd, costs 23s ; G. Coley v. H. Downs, £3 ros, costs 18s ; C. H. Collins v. Mrs Pikihuia Tamati, £g ros, costs os 6d ; Hooker and Curtis v. P. Smith, £2 , costs ros; E. Osborne v. J. Kennard, £2 19s 1 id, costs 15s ; C. H. Collins v. Kauri Palea, /17 043 9d, costs 30s 6d ; J. Perauo v. W. Knapp, £is, costs 31s, and seven days allowed in which to give up possession of house; and Eeviu and Co. Ltd. v. Geo. Yule, ,£l2 14s 3d, costs 25s 6d.

FLAX MILL MACHINERY. CLAIM FOR INSTALLING. Peter Robinson proceeded against William Ross claiming ,£5 19s for the setting up and labour in connection with the installation of two tail clippers at defendant’s flaxmill. Plaintiff was not represented by counsel and Mr Moore appeared for defendant. In evidence the plaintiff stated that defendant ordered two tail clippers for the Poplar mill, the price to be ,£27 ros each plus the cost of installation. Witness installed the machines and sent defendant an account for the labour etc., in connection with the installation. At every mill where these machines had been installed the cost of installation bad been paid in addition to the price of the machines. Defendant refused to pay the account sent, stating that he bad put the machines out as they were not satisfactory. * When the machines were installed It was stipulated that they should be ruu a week on trial to prove if they were satisfactory and this was done. No complaint was made until some weeks later. Witness contended that the machines worked entirely satisfactorily.

Mr Claude Speirs slated that defendant told him some three weeks alter the machines had been installed that they were still working satisfactory. Mr mill manager for defendant, also told him on several occasions that the machines were giving satisfaction, but later on told witness that

defendant was putting them out as he (defendant) considered (hey were not doing the work. Other millers who had the machines installed had spoken very highly of them to witness.

William Ross said the price agreed upon was 10s each. This covered the cost of installation. When they were put in witness was away and did not sea them working for about a fortnight, when he found that they were not doing the work which plaintiff claimed they would do. H« ordered them to be dismantled and advised plaintiff. William Levett, mill manager, stated the machines did not give satisfaction.

The Magistrate said it appeared that a price had been arranged for the machines installed and the cost of installation could not now be separated. In order not to prejudice any other claim that plaintiff might make he would enter a uou-suit with costs £1 is.