MAKING DIVER'S OUTFIT

DISPUTE ABOUT CONTRACT.

CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM.

TWENTY WITNESSES IN CASE.

A clatm made by John Wilfred Llewellyn \\ arren, trading as Warren and Company, electrical engineers, of Auckland, Mr. H. H. Ostler, against Frank Walters, diver. Manukau Road, Parnell (Mr. Mowlem). for the sum of £72 7s 4d, amount alleged to be due to plaintiffs for making aluminium castings of articles to be worn by the defendant in pursuit of his calling, was heard at an Auxiliary Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M."

The defendant made a counterclaim for £98 9s 3d, being £46 4s paid to the plaintiff on January 12. 1916, on account of work to be done by plaintiff in accordance with the latters quotation, but now alleged to be of no value to him ; £50 damages on account of delay and inconvenience, and th 3 fact that' the castings were alleged to be not of first-class materials; and £1 15s 3d on account oC wages.

The castings are part of a new patent divers outfit, designed to enable diving operations to be carried out at twice the depth at which work may be carried on in the ordinary diver's suit. The castings. which weigh about 3cwt, together with the moulds, were exhibited in Court. There are 20 witnesses in the case, only one of whom was disposed of vesterdav. The plaintiff, in his evidence, stated I that last November the defendant came to him and asked him whether he could make castings for a diving suit, which witness understood the defendant was going to patent, and according to a pattern which the defendant would supply. Witness said he could do so if the patterns were suitable, but strongly advised the defendant to get the smaller castings made first, and to ascertain whether they were suitable. The defendant, however, refused to accept this advice, and in December last ho sent along two patterns from which the breastplate and one upper leg piece were actually cast. The defendant inspected these castings, and was evidently quite satisfied with them because on January 12 last, he entered into a contract with witness to make further castings of aluminium at 4s 9d per lb according to patterns supplied, and up to a weight of 3cwt. The castings were dulv made. The defendant was in the shop from time to time inspecting them and raised no objections to them. There was some delay in the delivery of the castings, this being solely due to the unsuitably of the patterns, which had to be returned to the defendant and altered on several occasions. On June 13 the defendant came to plaintiff's shop in his absence and, without the foreman noticing it removed all the castings exceot the breastplate, which was then on the lathe being machined. The next day he wrote a letter to witness informing him that' the castings had been removed for safe custody and complaining for the first time about their quality. He refused to return them and a so to pav for them. The hearing of the case r. : 11 he resumed this afternoon.