Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Supreme Court Cross-Examination Of Engineer In Mower Claim

Dipping the motors of the Pyramid mower in acid had been suggested as a means of overcoming oil leaking, but the suggestion was not taken seriously, said Mogens • Ebbe Fraemohs, formerly works manager of W. H. Price and Son, Ltd., in the Supreme Court yesterday. He was being cross-examined before Mr Justice Adams by Mr R. W. Edgley, counsel for Pyramid Machines, Ltd., when the £55,623 claim against Price’s was resumed. The claim will be in its sixtieth day when the Court resumes this morning. Today will also be Fraemohs’s seventh day in the witness box.

Questioned by Mr Edgley, Fraemohs said he “did not remember” whether he or Hoban, of Pyramid Machines, first mentioned dipping the motors in acid. Leaking of Oil Fraemohs was questioned about his statement that with one exception, all changes in the mower made by Price’s were ,carried out on Pyramid Machines’ instructions. An O-ring seal had been put in 1955 production motors after “full discussion” with Pyramid Machines, Fraemohs said. “Was not the position this, Mr Fraemohs. Pyramid said that there was oil leaking and you yourself, or someone else at Price’s, decided that the remedy was to put in an O-ring seal?” asked Mr Edgley.

Fraemohs: If I say “no” it is a bit stronger than I want to say. I prefer to say “no” to that question.

Mr Edgley: Price’s did not decide on that remedy? Fraemohs: I suggested the remedy. “Did you not first suggest dipping the motors in acid to seal them?” asked Mr Edgley. “Yes sir, that was mentioned on March 31 in Hawarden, but it was not taken as a serious suggestion,” said Fraemohs. ‘‘Treating the surfaces with acid would mean they could not be dismantled again.” Mr Edgley: However, you did make the suggestion, did you? Fraemohs: Yes, we mentioned that. Mr Edgley: When you say “we,” you mean that you mentioned it, don’t you? “I don’t remember whether Mr Hoban or I mentioned it first,” said Fraemohs. “A Good Team” “You’ve spoken about leaving Price’s and Mr Price told you you weren’t indispensable?” asked Mr Edgley. Fraemohs: Yes.

Mr Edgley: Mr Price said ini evidence that after you left he had “a good team.” Do you believe it? Fraemohs: Yes, I quite believe that.

After you left, was there anyone competent to deal with the hydraulic problems involved in this mower job?—l cannot answer yes or no to that question. Price’s job was to manufacture the mower and the motor to sample and the men at Price’s were qualified to do so.

Supposing after you left that Price’s had to decide how to drive a mower by hydraulics, was there anyone competent to deal with the technical problems involved? “Mr Turnbull was amply qualified.” said Fraemohs.

Fraemohs . agreed that at a staff advisory meeting in March, 1956, he was reported as having said he “would not have left Price’s factory if the over-all position of the mowers had not shown considerable improvement”. Mr Edgley: What was the “considerable improvement” that the mowers showed? Fraemohs: The difference between “no go” and “go.” Were you yourself quite satisfied at that date that all was well with the mower?—Yes. I was satisfied that Pyramid Machines got what they asked for. “The Customer’s Instructions”

Mr Fraemohs, were you at March 19. 1956, satisfied that the Pyramid mower would work and would be satisfactory? I was talking as works manager and as such it was the customer’s instructions that I had to carry out. “You were then, and are, a qualified engineer. You must have had some thoughts of your own about this mower,” said Mr Edgley. “Were you satisfied that the Pyramid mower was satisfactory and would work?” Fraemohs: I am no agricultural engineer. From a mechanical point of view, the mower was sound.

Was it sound from a hydraulic point of view?—Yes, sir, Do you consider it had adequate hydraulic components?—Yes, sir. “Were the hydraulic components sent out with the mower adequate for the purpose of driving that mower?” asked Mr Edgley. Fraemohs: I don’t know.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19590603.2.38

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28911, 3 June 1959, Page 7

Word Count
685

Supreme Court Cross-Examination Of Engineer In Mower Claim Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28911, 3 June 1959, Page 7

Supreme Court Cross-Examination Of Engineer In Mower Claim Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28911, 3 June 1959, Page 7

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert