MILKING BY MACHINE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 125, 27 May 1913, Page 7

MILKING BY MACHINE.

A DISSATISFIED FARMER. SUED BY THE AGENT. A dispute between an agent and a farmer concerning a milking machine occupied the attention of his Honor Mr Juistice .Edwards at the Supreme Court for the greater part of to-day. James Gilbert and George Bryant Boulton,trading as Gilbert, Boulton and Co., manufacturers' agents, claimed from Alfred Fitzwilliam, a farmer of Whitford, the sum of £175 10/, and interest, for a four-cow milking plant that had been supplied. Mr J. R Reed, XC. (with him Mr W. P. Endean) appeared for the plaintiff firm, and Dr Bamford (instructed by Mr E. Mahony) appeared for the defendant. A counter-claim alleging breach of agreement on the part of the agents was considered with the claim. Defendant claimed damages for breach of guarantee, £20 for damage to cows, and £30 for destruction and loss of milk.

Mr Reed, in opening the case for the plaintiff, said that the ouus was on the defendant to show that the machine was not suitable for the purpose for which •it was supplied. The agreement of sale provided for one month's trial and payment by promissory note.

The defence claimed that within the month the machine was proved to be defective. The plant was installed, counsel explained, on ,Sth October, two trial milkings before that, having proved satisfactory. No question as to the machine being unsuitable arose until two months after I lie machine had been installed. After the installation Gilbert and Boulton heard from various sources tha,fc tho defendant was highly satisfied with the machine. On 15th November further reports camp to hand that the machine was satisfactory, hut shortly after defendant communicated by telephone that there had been a mishap to the machine. This, plaint iff alleged, was due to carelessness, and they fixed it up, and later the defendant's son reported that the machine was now working beautifully, and paid £15 on account. There was some discussion with the son as to when the defendant was going to make final arrangements regarding the promissory note*, but he intimated that his father would never agree to sign promissory notes. Counsel suggested that it was dislike of the idea of dealing with promissory notes that caused the defendant to desire to return the machine. When the firm's expert went to the defendant's i farm the effect of the request was that the whole thing should be taken away. The firm had not found out until the ; present proceedings were entered upon what were the alleged defects of the machine. If necessary, evidence would Ibe called to fliow that such defects as I were alleged were due to faiills of manipulation and not of construction.

Evidence was given by .lames Gilbert, one of the plaintiffs. Dr Ramford's crosspxamination of the witness was designed to show that in other instances the plaintiffs' milking machine had been tried and found lo be unsatisfactory.