APPEAL COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 174, 2 November 1910, Page 7

APPEAL COURT.

A BUTTER-BOX CASE. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Yesterday. Sitting in banco yesterday, Mr. Justice Chapman heard an appeal from the decision of Mr. W. R. Haselden, S.M., the case being Ellis and Burnand, Ltd., timber merchants, of Hamilton, v. Norman Gibbs, of Harris street, Wellington, liquidator of the Palmer Engineering Company. The liquidator had sued the Hamilton firm for £6O 17s, the balance due on tlie purchase of a printing machine, and a counter claim was lodged for £6O 17s, special damages foi breach of warranty. Mr. W. H. D. Bell appeared for the appellant firm, and Mr. F. G. Dalziell for the respondent.

Mr. Bell outlined the evidence that hid been adduced "before the magistrate. I He said that in January, 1908, the appellant firm had occasion to order from the Palmer Engineering Company a machine foT printing brands on butter boxes. They had previously obtained from the Palmer Engineering Co. a machine for the same purpose, and, desiring to duplicate their factory outfit, they wanted a second machine of exactly the same type. The brass brands of the various ."butter-making companies] were expensive, and when the second printing machine arrived it was found that as a main roTler of larger diameter was fitted in the machine the old brands could not he used and new brands had to he made. The machine had been invoiced out at £127. The appellant firm paid half this amount, and when sued for the "balance, counter claimed £OO 17s as damages for "breach of warranty. It was admitted that the new machine was> an improved pattern, but it had only been accepted because the "butter-box season was at 'its height at the time. The magistrate decided that in regard to the allegation that the brands were not appTicahle to both printing machines, special damages were too remote, trat he allowed £5 general damages on this head. Upon the claim for damages in connection with spare parts an award of £l4 IDs was made. Judgment was therefore given for the plaintiff firm for £6O 17s and £6 costs, and for the defendant on the counter claim for £lfl 10s, with £1 6s costs. "Argument was heard by "His Honor as to the remoteness of damages, and judgment was reserved.