A SEPARATOR ACCIDENT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 33, 8 February 1916, Page 2

A SEPARATOR ACCIDENT.

FARMERS' HTJUKLES. £501 DAMAGES CLAMED. Further evidence was heard at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon and to-day by his Honor ilr. Justice Cooper and a jury of twelve in the case Charles Avery Ashwin (Mr. H. H. Ostler) v. J. B.'MacEwan and Co., Ltd. ( : Dr. H. D. Banifordj, in which the , a dairy farmer, claimed £501 damages for injuries received through the failure of a cream separator purchased from the defendant company. The plaintiff's allegation was that through the parting of a too-weak screw union in the bowl, the latter tlrw off whiie revolving at full speed, and inflicted, two severe -wounds on plaintiffs rijrht arm, which woold never be of full use to him again. In support of the contention that the acrew joint was too weakly made, Mr. Ostler called two mechanical engineers and. two ex-managera of creameries, who agreed that the joint was not a strong one, but expressed some' doubt as to whether it would be subjected to great strain by the operation of the machine. Medical evidence as to plaintiffs injuries was also given.

In opening the case for the defence. Dr. Banrford expressed the view that the accident was caused by the incorrect assembling of the bowl and caps by the plaintiff, and a consequent uneven distribution of the weight when the bowl was revolved. He also suggested that when the accident occurred the two milk covers were not in position above the revolving bowl. The way in which the bowl waa put together, he, further suggested, strained the screw joint and contributed to the accident, though he held that the bowl did not come to pieces until it struck something after fTying oat of the machine.

William Dawn, sales manager for the defendant, in the course of his evidence, stated that although the firm had sold several hemdrod separators of the type supplied to plaintiff; not one had been found to b<> seriously defective, though worn-out working parts were replaced, and occasionally a machine came back for adjustment, being invariably returned to the owner afterwards.

Oscar Gunnar Lindstrom, who stated that he had been for eleven years separator expert with defendants, and bad had some yearn , previous experience with the makers of "Baltic" separators in Sweden, gave his opinion that the screwjoint to which the trouble was attributed, waa quite strong enough to stand ordinary usage, as the only strain npon it was that necessary ;to maintain a milk-tight joint at the 'bottom of tht> bowL where a rubber ring was fitted between the bowl and the toric-plate. The ease is proceeding.'