CLAIM AGAINST DAIRY COY.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 September 1918, Page 7

CLAIM AGAINST DAIRY COY.

AN ENGINEER'S UNDEKTAKINa. An action was heard in the Magistrate's Court yesterday in which Norman G. Winklemann (Mr. R. C. Hughes) sued the Lepperton Dairy Company (Mr. H. R. Billing) for the sum of £95, being balance on account of work done under contract with the company. Mr, Hughes stated that in May, 1917, the chairman of the company (Mr. Harper Lepper) interviewed the plaintiff and asked him to tender for the installation of an electric power and lighting plant at the company's factory at Lepperton. He went out to investigate the requirements, and wrote to the company on ■June 30, quoting £IBO net as the price for installing a generating plant, the company to furnish buildings for the plant and concrete foundations for the motor. He had no immediate reply to his letter, and so went out and saw the manager, and also attended a meeting ol directors, when he was told lis offer had been accepted. In order to allow him to obtain some of the necessary plant, the company advanced him £OO on account of the contract price. Tihe plant was put in and tested, but it was found that the amount of power from the waterwheel was not sufficient to drive the machinery of the factory. Plaintiff had suggested previously that the waterwheel in use prior to installing the electrical plant was in need of repairs. He was told that it was 4-h.p., and if that was so there would be a loss in transmission of from Jh.p. to lh.p. When the power was found insufficient he suggested installing a turbine. He received no reply to his letter in that respect, and so he applied to them for payment of the balance of the contract price. This they had declined, alleging that tlie plant did not fulfil the requirements of the company's factory, and they made a counterclaim for damages. There was some delay in commencing the work of the contract, as there was not room for plaintiff to work in the old factory until the company's machinery was removed to the new factory on the opposite side of the road. The new plant was tested in the following February, when it was found that there was not sufficient water in the river "to drive the wheel. The wheel was in a very bad state, and a delay of some months occurred effecting repairs. The company undertook to get tne water-wheel attended to, but when plaintiff wont out later to make another test he could not see that anything had been done to it. He subsequently had another test, when ho got 3h.p. from the wheel, but that was not sufficient, and that vas why he had suggested a turbine, which he had procured in case the wheel was not satisfactory. Plaintiff claimed that he had done all that was required in terms of his letter oi June 30, and the plant was quite capable of doing all that was required of it. He did not know that the plant had been used; the reason was that the waterwheel would not drive the motor. If it was properly repaired he believed it would drive the motor. Plaintiff gave evidence in support of counsel's statement, in which he said his outlay in connection with the work had been £157, the difference between that and the contract price being what he got for hia own labor. Cross-examined by Mr. Billing, plaintiff said his estimate pf the wheel developing 4h.p. was on the statement given him by the manager of the factory, as Sladden and Palmer's calculation. His own measurements indicated that the wheel would probably develop more than that power. He had not actually tested th"> loss of power between the wheel and his machinery, but he estimated it was about lh.p. He told the directors that the power from the wheel in the new factory would not be more thin lh.p. less fhnn the power of the wheel in the old factory. If a wheel were provided to develop 5h.p., his electrical installation should develop 4h.p., though he could not swear that it would. If the wheel wa9 coupled direct to the motor, and not by a counter-Bhaft, it would certainly develop 3h.p. In his interview with the manager at the factory he heard something about 3jjh,p. being required, but he could not guarantee what power would be got from the wheel without a test. The money for the contract had been assigned to the Bank of New Zealand. Replying to further questions plaintiff stated that the question of the unsatisfactory state of the water-wheel was raised from the very commencement of negotiations. To the best of his memory he told the directors at the meeting at Inglewood that the waterwheel was not satisfactory. He guaranteed his plant would be satisfactory provided be could get the necessary power from the water-wheel, which would be about Sh.p. He gave them to understand that the whole matter depended upon the amount of power to bo got from the wheel, which they were to provide. What the company seemed to want was a dam in the river and a turbine —a plant costing about £soo—for £IBO. In reply to questions as to the state of portions of the plant installed, witness said the dynamo was certainly of an old type, probably 40 years old, and it had been procured from Wanganui. He did not know that it had been turned out of the freezing works there on account of its being an antiquated machine. When his final test was made on June 18 he estimated his plant developed at least 2h.p. The installation was completed a few days before the final test. The delay between February, when the first test was made, and June was due to the wheel not being fixed up. He paid £35 for the water-wheel at Wanganui, and then had to pay commission and freight, making the cost at New Plymouth £4O. There were some other accessories with the dynamo, but they were all included in the fittings supplied to the dairy company. Re-examined by Mr. Hughes, witness said the matter of testing hydraulic pressure did not come within his training as a general engineer. His estimates of the power of tlve water-wheel were in no sense accurate calculations. He suggested substituting a turbine for the water-wheel on the first occasion he went out to the company's factory. The race in which the Wheel was built was subject to "siltage at its intake. In reply to the Magistrate, witness said it was no part of hia undertaking to provide the necessary motive power to drive the plant he was asked to instal It was agreed that if the power was not sufficient to drive the plant, the company was to take into consideration tne question of installing proper power It was agreed to join the Bank of New Zealand in the action, on the ground that plaintiff had assigned his right to the money to them, and that they really were the only people who had a right to 8 In opening the case for the defence Mr. Billing said that when the company began to build their new factory the chairman was in town inquiring as to the installation of an electrical plant, and he wa» referred to Mr. Wonklemaim.

Winklemann was asked merely to advise as to what plant would best meet the needs of the company in its new factory. They had drivea the machinery in the old factory by rneanß of a water wheel, and they desired to continue that power, but to have it transmitted across the road to the new factory. Winklemann had recommended the electrical plant, and had given them a tender for its installation. Something had been said about the power of the water-wheel, but Winklemann had said that not more than a half to one horse-power would be lost in transmission. The directors knew nothing about electrical machinery, and had invited plaintiff to a directors' meeting, where an agreement had been come to in regard to a contract. The claim of the company was that the plant would not develop more than one-half horsepower, the plant was not a modern one, and no respectable engineer would have installed such a plant, and that it was of no use to the company. They therefore refused to pay the balance of the money, and counter-claimed for the amount paid (£BS) and £SO damages. Wm. Ackland, farmer, Lepperton, a director of the defendant company, said he was present at the meeting of directors in July, 1917, which Winklemann attended. Winklemann was to instal a plant which would give the necessary power to drive the machinery of the cheese factory. He said he could give within J-h.p. of what the water wheel was giving at that time. The new plant was to be installed in order to make use of water-power and save coal. There was no suggestion that there was to be an experiment to see if the power of the wheel was sufficient, c* that £2OO or £250 more might be necessary to get the amount of power required. Winklemann was present at the meeting with the object of getting a deposit, and nothing was said about the likelihood of additional expenditure being necessary. In fact "everything in the garden was lovely." Witness was present at the factory in the dry season, when a test of the plant was made, and plaintiff complained of the amount- of water in the stream, and also that the wheel was not altogether satisfactory. In cross-examination by Mr. Hughes witness admitted that if Winklemann iiad provided machinery according to specification he did not think he (Winkleman) was called upon to supply the power to drive it.

Austin B. Lee»h, farmer, Sentry Hill, also a director of the company, gave evidence, and in cross-examination by Air. Hughes said the condition of the water wheel had been quite satisfactory up till December, 1917, when it gave some trouble, but it was repaired by the company. Re-examined by Mr. Billing, he said he had heard of some trouble with the wheel since December last, but did not know of it personally. Edward George McDougall, chief engineer at the Smart RoaS freezing works, said he had inspected the plant at the factory. The dynamo he had seen before. In 1902 it was discarded by the Wanganui freezing works as out of date, and, judging by its type, he would say it was well over 30 yfars old. Judgin? by the machinery at the dairy fact tory, he would say the man who put in such an installation did not know his business. He then gave details of his calculations, hased upon his experience, of the loss of power between the waterwheel and the generator. He estimated the power of the wheel at 6 h.p. and the power from the generator at 3£ h.p., and at the motor in the cheese factory of 2.97 h.p. The power available on tht main shaft in the cheese factory was 2.238 h.p. Further losses of efficiency through the main shafting in the factory reduced the power available in the factory to .5785 hp. He thought, if his estimates of losses erred at all, they vere on the low side. His experience i» general and electrical engineering extended from 1899. He had tested she water-wheel, and concluded it gave 8 h.p. If he had been asked to put in a plant, his first concern would have been for the power available. He would ttien seek out a generator of high efficiency, and calculate the losses of power between it and the main factory. Ho did not think it possible to make a satisfactory job with the plant installedThe power of ihe wheel was sufficient to do the work of the'factory, but not through an electrical installation. The plant, as set up, would work, but it was not well installed- It would not pass the fire underwriters' test. To Mr. Hugh 3: When he made his test, the condition of the race was not bucli as to get the best Tesults from the wheel. Tho wheel did not run true—no water-wheel did.

Thomas W. Tayior, factory manager for th« dairy compasy, said he was present at the factory on one occasion, with Mr. Leppev and Mr. Copestaku, when Mr. Winklemann made a test of the installation. Mr. Lepper asked Winklemann if he did not promise to give within one horse-power of that used in the old factory, and Winklemann did not deny that. They had not been able to use the plant to work tho factory. They had used steam power, for which they required half a ton of coal per day. The factory paid about 35s per ton for its coal. The usual season was about from August to May, but the factory had been running continuously since he took over the management in March. Edward Hellier, farmer, Lepperton, and a director of the company, also gave evidence corroborating that of other director^.

Harper B. Lepper, farmer, chairman of the defendant company, gave evidence on the lines of the, statement of MrBilling. He said 'the contract was let to the plaintiff on the condition that they wera to get within a half-horse power of that they had at the factory close alons,iide the wheel. The only reference to increased water-power was in the event of them needing "more power in the factory. They had never been able to use ths plant that had been installed, and it was, in fact, in their way at the factory- Ho had been asked by plaintiff a good many times to come ana see the plant working, but each time the plant had failed to do'what was required, and plaintiff always had some excuse to make, and assured witness that it would be all right directly. To Mr. Hughes: They had the wheel renovated, in order to give plaintiff the best possible chance of a good run Winklemann had guaranteed verbally at the meeting of directors in Judy that the. wheel would develop power enough to drive all the machinery they had in the factory. He did not know Winklemann's ability to give such a guarantee; had he known ho might not -have gane as far as he did in the matter. Tlfa question of installing a turbine was only discussed as a possible provision for future requirements.

The plaintiff, recalled, sftid Ms plant was perfect and the inability to develop its full power was ok account of not h?sng able to get the power required from fee Wfeter-wniseJ. The dynamo was in use when he bought it and producing equal to over 6 hv., and the motor was