SUPREME COURT 500 Pages Of Evidence In Lime Plant Claim

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27615, 23 March 1955, Page 9

SUPREME COURT 500 Pages Of Evidence In Lime Plant Claim

Five hundred foolscap pages of evidence have now been typed in the case being heard before Mr Justice Adams in the Supreme Court in which the Omihi Lime Company, Ltd., is claiming £12,772 special and general damages from Andrews and Beaven, Ltd., for breach of an alleged warranty on a portable lime crushing plant. The hearing will be continued today. Mr E. S. Bowie and Mr D. H. Godfrey are appearing for the plaintiff company, and Mr W. R. Lascelles and Mr A. Hearn for the defendant. A witness called by the defence on Monday was in the witness box again yesterday until 4.30 pan. when another witness was called by the defence.

Alexander Shears, an engineer employed by Andrews and Beaven, Ltd., continuing his evidence, begun on Monday, said that on September 6, 1952, he reported on the Omihi lime plant and work done on it If the screw conveyer had been properly cleaned and checked weekly by the operator there would have been no trouble with it. This trouble again occurred in June, 1953, and was due to the same cause. On September 22, 1952, he gave the crushing plant a trial and six tons of limestone were crushed and loaded in 27 minutes. Output was riDwed up then because of large rocks, tussock, mud and grass, too much spillage and other faults, and he recommended improvements in the operation of the plant. “Not Given Proper Care” Witness said that on February 26, 1953, he reported that he was unable to carry out a test of the portable crusher because of rain. He found that the plant needed repairs if it was to be kept running, for it had not been given proper care. The plant was standing in the middle of a paddock and uncovered. It was in a filthy condition and had not been cleaned for a considerable time. At the end of March, 1953, witness said he found that a bar in the crushes had apparently been hammered in, for the ends were burred. The bar was originaly made so that it could easily be fitted in by hand. On May 20, 1953, he found other defects due to improper maintenance. Every time he visited the plant there was a new operator and none seemed familiar with the proper method of running the plant. The complaints of low output were due partly to the hardness of the rock at Balmoral but mostly to putting the limestone through when it was too wet, consequently packing it hard in the pulveriser which had not been cleaned for some time. Bars in the pulveriser were bent and this suggested that a piece of iron had gone through with the limestone. After the machine was

cleaned and repaired, four tons of rock were put through in 31 minutes. This was a good output considering the hardness of Balmoral rock. In March, 1954, said witness, he Inspected the portable plant at Omihi because there was to be a claim against his employers. He did not know whether he had been expected or not. He saw that an attempt had been made to clean the engine and the oil had just been changed. Witness detailed faults in the plant due, he said, to its not having been properly looked after.

Performance of Kakahu Plant Owen Raymond Chapman, a director and part owner of the Kakahu Lime Company, who previously gave evidence on the question of warranty or no warranty, was recalled to give evidence on other matters in the case. He said that the output of the plant at Kakahu was 22J tons an hour in good conditions. With one fall of 200 tons of good rock the output was 30 tons an hour. On November 10, 1954, he carried out a test of the crusher. The rock was the ordinary run of the quarry and the machine put through six tons in 12 minutes. The maintaining of a high output depended on the availability of the rock, its condition, the proportion of large rock to fine, the efficiency of the man operating the plant, the condition of the plant, the state of the weather, the demand for the finished product, and the ability of the transport operators to distribute the lime. Much depended on the experience of the man operating the machine and working the feeder. His company’s records showed big variations in output, due to one or some of the factors mentioned. His company’s machine had worked continuously for 10 to 12 hours a day for several different periods. His company’s plant was handling rock with a greater proportion of large lumps than other works were doing. In normal practice this hindered output. His company was very satisfied with the performance of their plant which they had brought from Andrews and Beaven. Mr Bowie: How would you react to a suggestion that you change from a six-cylinder engine to a four-cylinder one?

Witness: Strangely enough, I’ve been advised to do that.

Mr Bowie: But would you do it? Witness: I would, provided I could run the auxiliary drives by separate motors.

Mr Bowie: Would you not require a warranty on output? His Honour: I think that, after this case, there would be great difficulty in getting a warranty from anyone in Canterbury, Mr Bowie. At this stage the Court was adjourned to this morning.