MILKING MACHINE CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 214, 17 February 1915, Page 3

MILKING MACHINE CASE.

JUDGMENT RESERVED. At- lie Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr A. Crooke S.M., the case n which the Cane .Milking .Machine Co (Mr. Johnstone) sued Harry Lett, i I'ungarehu (Jlr C. 11. Weston) for £1». the price - of a milking machine supplier to tin; defendant, was resumed. The case for the defence was continued. John Edward Xixon, engineer, of New Plymouth, deposed that he had inspected the plant six weeks ago. lie considered that the dam should have been placed lower down. This would /lave mauled three times the quantity of water to have been secured and would also have required a shorter race. The ba.kets on the water wheel should have been built so as to hold the water longer. This fall would have allowed the wheel to b ( . made two feet more in dia-' eter. This would have enabled the wheel to have been made six inches wider and so have required less water. Provided there was sullicient water, the wheel installed could have done the work The floodsrate allowed fullv 10 per cent, of the water to escape. The intermediate shaft was an inch and a half out of alignment, lie also enumerated other defects, lie did not consider the job a finished one. The pulleys and shafting were the worst job that he had ever seen. In' cross-examination, witness stated that all the defects in the assembling of the machinery could be put right in a day. He took no levels as to the sites of the dam. Harry Layman, farmer, said he. used a Cane plant himself, driven by a benzine engine. His machine was infinitely better erected than was Lett's. Ho had seen the latter's water wheel in motion and some of the pulleys revolved without moving the machinery. This closed the case for the defence.

Mr. Weston, in addressing tin- Court, submitted that as his client hue! not accepted delivery of the plant, the action should have been for damages fur non-acceptance, and not for the price of the plant. Plaintiffs had taken upon themselves the erection of the plant, and should have used every pound of water to the best advantage, particularly when they knew that there was a doubt as to' the sufficiency of the water. The evidence, lie argued, showed that the dam and wheel' had been to constructed as not to take full ail vantape of the available water supply, and the pulleys and shafting had not been left in proper state. Defendant had been perfectly consistent, and had rescinded the contract. Mr. Johnstone argued that defendant had no fault to and with the milking machine, but only with the power part of it. He held that plaintiff was entitled to sue upon an implied contract for work and labor done. The company had suggested putting in an engine for motive power, but defendant, after extensive enquiries as to the water supply, had decided in favor of a waterpower plant, and had himself let a con- j tract for the erection of the dam. The ' plant was not able to run. in January, J 11)14, because the. dam was not finkhed, I and there was no water available. Re- i garding the defects in the assembling of the machinery, these, witnesses' admit- j ted. could be repaired in a day. j The Magistrate asked why the com- \ pany had not sent an inspector to see j that the repairs ha/l been executed. | Continuing, Mr. Johnstone said the company had offered to put an engine in to provide the motive power, and Mr. j Lett had agreed to pay £lO for this, j The real trouble, he argued, was because : there was not enough water, and as Lett had constructed the dam, the company was not responsible for that. Referring to tlie counter-claim, counsel , dealt With the various items, contend- ' ing that- there was no evidence in support of the claim for £7B for damages through tile water-wheel and pulleys being badly constructed, and that £9O for wages was not the fault of the com- j panv, as defendant had not taken the j plant over. Regarding the special dam- | ages, £lB 13s, he held that evidence ' must be given of actual loss suffered. | The Magistrate reserved his decision ' until after he had visited and inspected the site. I