PYRAMID MOWER CLAIM

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28889, 8 May 1959, Page 20

PYRAMID MOWER CLAIM

Director Completes Evidence W. H. Price and Son, Ltd.. would have claimed to be hydraulic engineers when first approached by Pyramid Machines. Ltd., in June, 1954, but in the sense of water hydraulics and pumping, said Walter Hean Price, managing director of the firm, in re-examination by Mr R. A. Young. when the Pyramid hydraulic mower claim was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday.

Price’s re-examination was completed shortly before the luncheon adjournment, after he had spent his ninth day giving evidence. Technical evidence by Antony Hamnet Julian, production manager for Price’s since April, 1957. occupied the rest of the day’s hearing. In answer to Mr Young. Price said that down to the end of June. 1954, he had had “no experience at all” with agricultural mowers of the conventional type. The firm, however, always tried to “keep an eye to the future” with new fields of work. Price said he knew of no changes made from time to time in the Pyramid mower which were not approved by Pyramid.

“Do you mean by that that all changes were approved by Pyramid before they were made?” asked his Honour. “Before they were made in quantities, yes.” replied Price. Concerning Price’s bank overdraft, Price said his firm had been working on one for some years but it had a limit. Embarking on the Pyramid mower project. Price’s had required an extra overdraft rather than simplyraising one for that purpose. Questioned by Mr Young about his diary entry that if Pyramid's venture was ultimately successful. Price’s would expect “a few thousand in.” Price said: “If they did come right we were expecting them to pay some thousands towards what'they owed. It was only yesterday I realised the ambiguity of that sentence.”