LIGHTING PLANT DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 151, 27 June 1924, Page 4

LIGHTING PLANT DISPUTE.

A rr.ATV SOSXATSED. The question, of tlie cSxdLsmzy of a stove and lighting plarri ircisrptyd 3lr. I - X- Htrtrt. S_il_ a.n tne llagiatrate's Court. Tim DayCte Li'sis Cbmps.ny Horrocks) aLJigiLl to reoiCTir fin:m A- GKicta (ilr. ScsEon). £IG3 W.;"5. allcced to be due and oik for a plant sirpplled. Tie defendant stafcid tiss plknt did not do vsrhat £t was represented to be capable at Etridencs was giten by two witnesses that plants srrpplied them proved tlioroughJr satisfactcrrThe cf liie piiiintifi" compacr said he paiitcd out to defendant when half-way through the JqC of Lnstnila.tiQn that t&c nmchinc -eras not big cucngh far the plant, if they intended to run the Ifgtts and the "stare together. Later the bigger machine was put in, and the plant" worked all right. In answer to Mr. Sextan, witness said Mr. lucks did say something- about wanting a reduction in the price if a bigger machine was supplied. ilr. Sexton said they were not attacking the Daylite Gas system. Imt alleged that this particular machine was not satisfactory. Mr. Nicks had paid £.50, which he considered covered the cost of the fixing, which could be used for a supply by ordinary coal gas. As it was proved" that the arrangement was that the work should lie done on a 10 per wnt basis. Mr. Hunt gave judg-ment fur the plaintiff for the amount claimed.