Supreme Court FIELD-TESTING OF MOWER

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29004, 18 September 1959, Page 14

Supreme Court FIELD-TESTING OF MOWER

Defence Counsel’s Submission A deliberate attempt by the directors of Pyramid Machines, Ltd., to distort the tgue position in regard to the field-testing of the 1955 experimental mower was alleged by Mr R. A. Young during the mower • dispute hearing in the Supreme Court yesterday. Addressing Mr Justice Adams for the tenth day on behalf of W. H. Price and Son, Ltd., Mr Young said that the Pyramid directors had adopted a “subterfuge” during the trial to try to bluff the Court.

He submitted that the plaintiff’s claim that the experimental mower had mown 500 acres had been disproved in four ways: by the evidence of the Pyramid directors, coupled with the defendant’s records of the troubles with the mower; by the evidence of witnesses called by the defence; by the evidence of the actual records of the performances; and by the “silent evidence” that certain components, in particular the motor, could not have stood up to that amount of work. “I submit that Pyramid Machines made matters even worse by attributing to this mower performances far better than could be obtained from well-known and old-established conventional mowers,” said counsel. The representation that the mower had cut lucerne at 15 miles an hour implied that it produced no less than 5200 cutting strokes a minute, which was “so fantastic as to be beyond the realm of reason.” “Selling Feature”

In 1955 this representation would have been regarded by the agents as so revolutionary as to be a major selling feature, especially when Latimer had claimed that it had been tested over this acreage, and that this was the sixth prototype. “Latimer, Hoban and Baker were astute and wide-awake men, and towards the end of the case, when they could see the writing on the wall as far as the mower’s performance was concerned, they had to find some other means of escape,” Mr Young said. “Agents and farmers were in real trouble because of what Latimer had said in correspondence.” The plaintiffs had decided on recall on the ingenious scheme of denying that they had told Price and Son about the experimental mower’s performance. “What they did was a form of subterfuge that should not commend itself to your Honour,” said counsel.

“These three men, by their contract with Price’s, had involved Price’s in an expenditure of no less than .£40,000,” he added. “They had been supplied with this mower for the sole purpose of field-testing it, and who could be more interested in the results of those performances than Price’s?” At that stage substantially the whole of the risk of the venture was being borne by Price’s, while the plaintiffs had only £5O each at staler “This venture started with the extravagant statements of Latimer and the other two men who were over-anxious to share in the gain that would follow.” It was submitted that the plaintiffs had made a deliberate attempt to distort the true position and to “bluff” the Court, Mr Young said.