SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2806, 26 June 1916, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

AN ELECTRIC MOTOR CASE. Reserved judgment in an appeal from the decision of Mr. W. G. Kidilell, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court, in the case of 11. G. Anderson and Co., machinery importers, Wellington, against liolford and Co., electrical engineers, Gisborne,' was delivered by His Honour Mr. Justice Husking in the Supreme Court on Saturday morning. The plaintiffs claimed and obtained judgment before the Magistrate for „CiV3 iis. 7d., on a dishonoured promissory note, which included i;ll) 15s. ■Id. for adjusting the electric motor sold, and 12s. !)d. interest on the p.n. The dispute arose over the fitness and efficiency of a. 500 voltage motor (suitable for tho Wellington current) for the Gisborne cur-rent, which was a voltage of 4-10. The most of the evidence had been taken for the Lower Court by commission, and tho Magistrate had held that there was no agreement but to supply a motor, and that the purchasers (Messrs. Grundy and Shennan, cabinet-makers) had used the machine 'with satisfactory results after Holford and Co., who had acted as agents, had informed Anderson and Co. that the machine was not suit-' able. His Honour "felt coerced by the evidence to differ from tho Magistrate," on the point. It- was tho duty of tlio respondents to supply a niachino adapted to tho Gisborne current, and suitable to the requirements of 'Messrs. Grundy and Shennan's factory; and as tho machine was not so adaptable and suitable the contract was violated, and that entitled,' His Honour held, appellants to reject the machine and treat tho contract as repudiated. There was also a promise made, His Honour found, by 'respondents to substitute another motor, and an implied arrangement that Messrs. Grundy and. Sheunan might use tho motor till this promise was fulfilled, or until, at all events, respondents had indicated that they would not'perform it. As there was not specific performance, •Holford and Co. were ; justified in declining payment of the promissory note. "It may be," observed His Honour, "that the use of the machine'was inconsistent with the duty of the appellants as bailees, and they may tit consequence be liable in damages for that breach of du'iy, but I cannot on this appeal, and do not decide that point." Otherwise there was a complete non-performance of the. promise for which the promissory note was given; and so the appeal was allowed, and judgment entered in the Magistrate's Court for the appellants, with £n ss. and disbursements, costs to bo paid by the respondents, to tho appellants. Mr. T. Neave appeared for the appellants, and Mr. T. Xoimg for the respondents.

A RESERVED,JUDGMENT IN DIVORCE. . A. divorce case, the decision in which was reserved, was reviewed on Saturday morning by His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking in a judgment for the petitioner, Alice Thomas (for whom Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared), who applied at the recent sittings in divorce for a dissolution of her marriage with Richard Thomas, on the ground of drunkenness and cruelly. The parties had not been living together for over. four years prior to

these proceeding, and the question was ' whether tlio requirements of the. law hail been fulfilled, ami whether utter » lapse of so lonjj a period the character and conduct of the respondent connl be still regarded as drunken and cruel. Mr. Wili'oi'd had cited the case of Korth v. Korth in support of his contention that the cause of divorce did not rest upon drunkenness and oruelty lor four years just prior to the taking of action, but for four years prior to the separation of tho parties. His (lonoiir, alter reviewing the evidence, held that the petition was not effected or forfeited even if respondent had lived an exemplary life after petitioner had left him, or had exhibited a harmless disposition since, and the delay in filing the petition was due to lack of funds. He granted petitioner a decree nisi, to be made absolute in threo months, with cost.?, £V>, and disbursements, against petitioner.