SWEETS SLOT-MACHINES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XL, Issue 1790, 16 February 1918, Page 3

SWEETS SLOT-MACHINES.

ALLEGED TO BE UNSATISFACTORY. At the last sittings'of the Magistrate’s Court locally considerable time was occupied in taking evidence for the defence in the case of the New Zealand Slot Machine Co., Ltd., v. William Hamer, a claim for £2l 19s Bd, (he value of goods supplied and costs of delivery, etc. Defendant claimed that the machines were defective, and evidence was given locally to this effect. The ease came up before the Wellington Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when Mr E. M. Beeehey, who appeared for the defence, said that the machines were easily tampered with, and evidence was called at Foxton, where the case was first heard, to show that the boxes could he emptied, or almost emptied, by inserting a single penny and manipulating the letfer carefully Plaintiffs held that the machines could not be tampered.,with except during intervals, when the-hall was empty, and contended that had the hall been properly supervised, no losses would have taken place, and defendant would have received the value of the sweets taken out instead of under one-half. Defendant counter-claimed for £4 9s 4d, the difference between the money he should have received and that he actually obtained from the boxes. The Magistrate dismissed the counter-claim, and, in finding for the plaintiff in the sum of £9 14s with costs, said that if the plaintiff company was aware that the machines were liable to be interfered with, the defendant should have been instructed to ■ exercise supervision, whereas he stated that no such instructions were received. The defendant, however, did not notify the plaintiffs that the machines were unsatisfactory, nor did he exercise the supervision which he then knew was necessary, or take steps to terminate the contract.