HAMILTON FIRM AT LAW.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 137, 12 June 1922, Page 2

HAMILTON FIRM AT LAW.

; TROUBLE OVER OIL ENGINES.' (LAI.M AM) COINTKR-CLAJM. 1 Tlirre ns i-laini nnd counter-claim in an action ruinrr- •need at the Supreme Court this morning before Mr. Justice Stringer. The plaintiffs were OreenI sdadeV. Ltd.. si Hamilton company, carI rviiift mi the business nf engineers, and tlie defendant* tlie Farmers' Milking Machines Co.. of Auckland I Mr. Ostler ■ and Mr. Tuck I. Plaintiffs claimed £407 and interest on certain promissory notes given by the defendants to plaintiffs in payment for a number of oil engines. The amount of tlip claim was admitted, with the exception of £.">. l>lll the defendants counter-claimed for Oi3(i. by way of rtarnapes. •in connection with certain alleged irregularities in the contract. Mr. Ostler, ill opening the case, said that the directors of the company, after jan inspection, contracted for a supply nf I 3(1 machines. From the subsequent ' events there were two sources of trouble. I 'flic lirst was the failure of most of the I machines to develop their estimated I power, while the second was the dilatoriness in fulfilling the contract. Dealing with the first cause of complaint, Mr. Ostler staled that mnet of tlie engines (only :!3 of the 3(1 were supplied! gave trouble, and the company had to send mechanics to tlie settlers where they were installed. At first it was thought that the trouble was due to the magnetos, but subsequently it was decided to be duo to faulty construction, and the engines would not develop the h.p. that was expected of them. Kxperts tested them, and failed to get more than \\ h.p. Of the •'!•"> machines actually installed, five had to he scrapped and new :mcs supplied, this costing £240. The machines, continued counsel, were wanted for the milking season, but the delay in delivery m- nni great inconvenience: in fact, ten orders front farmers were cancelled. The profit on each would have been £*O. and the company therefore . claimed in this connection £400. Mr. t (Jreenslade made no effort to meet the. " company, and when the promissory note became due he issued a writ. J. YV\ Warren, a director of the com- ; J pany. and Richard Sneddon, a former ? manager, gave evidence this morning in t connection with the counter-claim. 1 The ease is expected to occupy two or three days!