ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 15338, 23 July 1915, Page 3

ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT.

AN'INTERESTING CASE. In the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr H. W. Bishop, 8.M., Wm. Bradshaw and T. J. Edmonds (Mr Whitcombe) claimed from Messrs Wailace and Cooper (Mr Caesidy) the sum of £200 as damages, and stated that (1) on August 25th, 1914, the defendants agreed to construct five rotary engines for the price of £150: (2) on August 29th, 1914. the defendants received from . the plaintiffs their acceptance of the said offer subject to the enginos giving off a. definite horse-power and being delivered within a reasonable time; (3) on October 12th, 1914, the defendants received from the plaintiff £25 on acooinit of the said contract; (4) the defendants had not made or delivered the said engines or any of them as agreed To Mr Cassidy Bradshaw said that he was the inventor of a new idea in lorries, for which he had obtained patents. The lorry was to be run by four engines, each wheel being driven ard steered separately. There was al?o a uatent idea in the drive which the witness claimed was going to revolutionise the motor traction in. dustry. There was an idea of floating a £100,000 company to exploit this invention. Witness was endeavouring at the present time to get a syndicate" together to get the invention under way. Ho declined to admit that the whole principle of the invention was useless and absurd, and he claimed that his machine would "go"' in spite of aiiv expert's opinion to the contrary. T. J. Edmonds stated that ho was interested, with Bradshaw, in the new invention! He had visited Wallace 1 and Cooper's place in Timarn and had seen the rotary engine referred to in action, but it was not entirely satisfactory and was not running under load. He understood that each engine ordered was to be guaranteed to produce from 6 to 6.1 horse-power at IL'01 , ) pressure. He was present at a trial of cueh an engine in Cbristchnruh, which was not at all satisfactory. "With re. gard to Bradshaw's invention, he was satisfied that it wns a novel and new idea in tractors, and would be satisfactory. D. Glass, a mechanic at Craddock and Co.'.s. gave evidence that at the trial of the engine in Christehurcli. the encine, though revolving at 600 revolutions per minute, gave out hardly J h.p. To Mr Cassidy : Witness said he had seen a tiactor working on the plahetary svstom in the .Ole; Country. For the defence, James Keir. of P. and D. DiuicaD. said BradsJiaw had called and described his L "so-called'■ Invention to witness. Witness's opinion of the whole idea was that, "it was positive lunacy from an engineerir g point of view." "Witness suggested that Bradshaw should set Professor, Scott to pronounce on his tractor, and said that if the Professor said the idea muld save half an ounce of power, he (witness) would civo I - 10 to the Patriotic Fund. Andrew Anderf-on said he could not understand the frame of mind of a man who was trying to do what Bradehaw was. In his opinion the machine was impracticable. A. W. Bethune. inspector of machinery, also thought the idea was impracticable-. In his opinion it wa s opposed to engineering principles though possibly "the tractor might be made to go. His Worship said that, on the evidence it was quite impossible that ho could hold that the plaintiff could recover. He was no* satisfied tnat there h«<! even been a contract, and in any case it was not a contract on which plaintiff,could recover. Judgment was given for doi'an/t°-»- "'**. -" -~» t<