Supreme Court' PYRAMID MOWER DISPUTE

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28920, 13 June 1959, Page 15

Supreme Court' PYRAMID MOWER DISPUTE

Tests Described By Engineer

Evidence that he had advised a director of Pyramid Machines, Ltd., against the use of hydraulics to drive agricultural mowers was given by an engineer in the Supreme Court yesterday when the hearing of the claim against W. H. Price and Son, Ltd., was continued before Mr Justice Adams.

The witness, Rowland John Whitby Lindsay, assistant engineer to the Industrial Development Department of the University of Canterbury, said that in 1953 or 1954 Latimer (a director of Pyramid Machines)went to the department for advice on hydraulic equipment. Lindsay said he had told Latimer he considered hydraulics an inefficient and complicated way of doing a job which could be done much more simply by mechanical > means. From his knowledge the tractor hydraulic system was designed for intermittent application and not for continuous running. Asked about the manufacture of hydraulic equipment in New Zealand, he had told Latimer it would be very difficult to get any New Zealand manufacturer to work to the high production standards demanded for the aircraft hydraulic equipment of which he had experience. Also the development period would be long and costly.

The witness said that one of the simpler itaeans he had suggested for driving the mower was the use of a petrol engine of 1 h.p. or h.p. In another interview witn Latimer in March, 1954, he hac' made some calculations giving an approximate estimated performance from a hydraulic system delivering 6£ gallons of oil a minute at 1000 p.s.i. From figures supplied by Latimer the witness estimated that such a system would possibly produce 3.5 h.p. His main reason for advising something other than hydraulics was the fact that expected overall efficiencies would be less than 50 per cent. “I said that hydraulics would be costly, difficult, and possibly of short life because no agricultural equipment could, be maintained to aircraft standards, and that even on aircraft hydraulics the life of some components was strictly limited,” said Lindsay. In July and August, * 1955, horse-power tests were carried out on two hydraulic motors made by Price and Son, at the request of Latimer. A report was written by the witness and the results of the tests were recorded in a series of graphs. When he took the results of the tests to Price and Son the performance of the motors was discussed, and surprise was expressed at the low efficiency of the motors.

To Mr R. W. Edgley, Lindsay said that Latimer had no drawings or plans at their first meeting, and was rather reluctant to state for what purpose he was going to use the hydraulic application. He agreed that Turnbull, an employee of Price and Sons, had helped in the tests of the two motors.

PRISON TERM REDUCED

Sentence Passed In Dunedin

A term of four years’ imprisonment for warehouse and shop breaking and conversion of a truck imposed on John Alexander Shanks in the Magistrate’s Court at Dunedin last April was reduced by 12 months when Shanks appealed against the sentence before Mr Justice Haggitt in the Supreme Court yesterday. Shanks was sentenced by Mr J. D. Willis, S.M., to 18 months’ imprisonment on a charge of warehouse breaking, 18 months’ imprisonment on a charge of shop breaking, and 12 months’ imprisonment on a charge of converting a truck, the terms being cumulative. “I feel the Magistrate erred in making the three sentences cumulative,” said his Honour. “It seems to me that the offences of shopbreaking and vehicle conversion more or less fell together. ‘‘l allow the appeal to the extent of making the sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment for conversion concurrent with the sentence for shopbreaking,” said his Honour.

Mr H. E. Blank, who appeared for Shanks, said that only in extreme cases should a Magistrate exceed his normal jurisdiction and impose imprisonment total ling more than three years. Only after full inquiry into the facts would he be justified in doing so. But the Magistrate had no probation officer’s report and Shanks had not been represented by counsel. He had been sentenced on the day he was charged, when he had pleaded guilty. ‘‘Few goods were stolen, and there was no damage to the truck, or other wanton damage with the offences. They were apparently the result of a drunken spree,” Mr Blank said. For the Crown; Mr C. M. Roper said that although the offences could not be regarded lightly, the term of four years’ ‘imprisonment did seem excessive—it was a term often associated with the more determined criminal, such as a safebreaker, when Shanks appeared little more than ‘‘a drunken nuisance.’ ’

CLAIM AGAINST GROCER

Judgment For £348

Judgment was given by Mr Justice Haggitt in the Supreme Court yesterday for W. A. Mintrom and Company, Ltd., in its claim for £348 19s 4d against Frank Mitchell, a grocer, this amount being Jhe balance of purchase money owing on a shop at 337 Stanmore road.

judgment was also given for Mintrom and Company on a counter-claim by Mitchell for £5OO damages for alleged fraud. Mitchell had alleged that the shop’s weekly turnover had been

represented as £278 when it was actually £174.

Costs were granted the plaintiff with each judgment. ‘‘Any charge of fraud must be pleaded with the utmost particularity, must be set forth specifically, and must be strictly and clearly proved,” said his Honour.

‘‘After considering the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that Mitchell was mistaken in his allegation of fraud. It is clear from the evidence that the plaintiff could not have known the turnover figures as at March 31, 1958, and I must, therefore, accept his evidence.” His Honour said he accepted that an accountant, Francis, had pointed out to Mitchell that the plaintiff’s takings had dropped. He accepted that evidence of Francis in preference to that of Ischan, a business officer of Foodstuffs, Ltd., who was ‘‘an unsatisfactory witness.” ‘‘Although I find against Mitchell, I do feel that he did not obtain the business which he thought he was obtaining, and for which he had paid his goodwill—but the blame for that cannot be laid on the plaintiff,” his Honour said.

Mr C. M. Roper appeared for Mintrom and Company and Mr G. S. Brockett anti Mr R. J. de Goldi for Mitchell.