Untitled

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 9, Issue 567, 17 September 1920, Page 3

Charles Kidd, farmer, Puni, said he had a great deal of experience with lighting systems for many years throughout the Auckland Province. He was agent for one system, and they installed at the rate of about 1000 a year. When properties were sold they gave people to understand that they would remove them to other properties for very little cost. In his experience it was the usual practice to sell the plants separately and at valuation when properties changed hands. He knew there was an acetylene gas plant at the property. It was also customary to sell acetylene plants separately. The benzine lighting plants were always sold separately from the house, but sometimes a person left the plant through the goodness of his heart. Lawrence Edward Knight, farmer, Mauku, said he knew the property and the lighting system. He gave assistance to dismantle the plant, which was a very simple undertaking. No damage whatever was done in dismantling the plant. The damage mentioned by Mr. Landon was due through the installation of an acetylene system. In slimming up after the luncheon adjournment, His Worship said the facts disclosed by the evidence was that when plaintiff purchased the property there was a benzine and air gas lighting' system installed, but when he took possession it had been removed. A fact disclosed was that when defendant sold the property it included the sale of the articles in dispute. The question of fixture or otherwise was not entered into. The defendant, when he acquired the farm from plaintiff's brother, from his own remarks anticipated the lighting system would go with the property. If the defendant's new place did not require a lighting system nothing would have been heard of the present case, but as soon as he found the new property required a lighting system he took the plant to the newly-acquired place. He found on fact that the lighting system was included in the sale. On this quesi lion he found for plaintiff. With regard to the iron rack, it was a fixture for warming plates and airing clothes and other damp articles, and was to be found in almost any house over a range. Defendant might as well in effect remove the oven door, which could he done as easily as the removal of the rack. When anyone bought a range from an ironmonger they bought the langj plus a rack. Defendant wa? not justified in removing this, and he again found for plaintiff.

The order of the Court would be for the defendant to return the articles in dispute within seven days in the alternative the payment of and £1 respectively, the amount claimed, i" crm possession could not be had. in any case defendant is to pay costs amounting to £6 17s. Mr. Hanna gave notice of appeal, the security being fixed at £ls 15s.

It is freely rumoured (says the Otago Daily Times) that should the price of butter be increased to 2s 6d per pound the watersides of New Zealand will refuse to load it into the steamers.