CLAIM FOR A GOLD AMALGAMATING MACHINE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1802, 18 December 1896, Page 3

CLAIM FOR A GOLD AMALGAMATING MACHINE.

In the S.M. Court, Dunedin, before Mr Carew, S.M., Thomaß Rushton (St. Bathans) sued William Benjamin Walters for £57 Os 3.1. Mr J. F. M. Eraser appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hosking for defendant. In this case, which was partially heard on the 2nd inst., the plaintiff, who is a miner residing at St. Bathans, sued the defendant, who is a civil engineer, for the sum of £57 Oa 3d, being the amount paid for a " Walters gold amalgamating machine," £35 3s 3d, and expenses in connection with the same, £2l 17s.—Mr Eraser, in opening plaintiff's case, said the facts were that on August 12,1896, plaintiff purchased from the defendant a gold amalgamating machine and appliances for the above sum on the strength of a warranty given by defendant In which it was asserted that no other machine had been invented that would work effectively with or without water and bring the fine gold in contact with the plates (by means of concussion) so many times as the " Walters gold amalgamating machine." The warranty further said: "It has been devised for quantity, economyoflabor.andcertaintyofsaviogallthe gold, however fine; the machine treats equally well sand pulp, quartz pulp, tailings, trie, slime, beach or black sand, and flour or fknt gold, also saving the flowered mercury used by batteries that these machines are attached to ; one of these machines will keep four men fully employed, and only requires a boy to supply the motive power from the time the material iB thrown into the hopper till it leaves the end of the shoot." Plaintiff paid for the railage and cartage of the machine to St. Bathans, and attempted there to do with the machine the work it was warranted to do, but it would not work with the pump supplied. Defendant, who was communicated with, recommended a more powerful pump, which was procured. The machine was then submitted to a full and careful trial with the new pump, and the machine proved to be totally unfit for the work for which it had been purchased and which it had been warranted to do, and was valueless. In consequence of this, counsel contended, plaintiff was entitled to a refund of the purchase money and of the expenses which had been incurred in connection with the machine.

W. Cutten, engineer, gave expert evidence to the effect that the machine was unsuitable for the purpose for which it was intended.

At this stage His Worship inspected the machine in question, which was without the court premises. Upon resuming, John M'Cullock, a miner, gave evidence to having had one of " Walters gold amalgamating machines " at the Rock and Pillar, and found it to be absolutely useless.

Thomas Rushton, plaintiff, also gave evidence regarding the unsatisfactory working of the machine. He stated that he had not seen Mr Walters's circular at the time he purchased tho machine, but Mr Walters at that time used the words in recommending the machine that he afterwards saw in the circular.

Mr Hosking, in opening the case for defendant, reviewed the evidence that had been given in support of plaintiffs caee. He might fairly well Buoceed in the case by the application of the law to the facts, which, he submitted, showed that plaintiff, on his own evidence, was not entitled to succeed. He would prefer, however, to succeed on the merits of the case. He would not deny that Walters may have said to Rushton that the machine would put through two tons an hour. It must be recollected that Rushton had not seen the circulars until after he purchased the machine, bub Walters had no desire to go back on what was said in the circulars. When a man stated that a machine would put through so much Btuff an hour he meant that the machine would do that if it was worked properly and was in good working order. Mr Rushton hadnotworkedthemachinepropcrly inasmuch as he had used cocoanut matting, which would seriously interfere with the beneficial effects of the machine on the stuff operated upon. If that is so, Rushton's evidence that he gave the machine a proper trial must fall to the ground. A great deal had been made out of the fact that the machine would not work heavy stuff, but that the heavy stuff was thrown over the hopper. It was said that the coarße stuff was rejected, and only the fine stuff treated. That was the object of the machine. When it was stated that the machine would put through two tons an hour the coarse stuff was included in that amount. The question to be considered was whether tho machine was warranted to possess certain qualities, and, if so, whether the machine possessed those qualities or not. Mr Hosking quoted a number of authorities on the question of warranties in Bupport of hia contention that what w»o alleged was a

warranty was not a warranty, and consequently could not have any bearing on the case in question. More than this, Rushton had had a teßt of the machine before he bought it, and therefore what was said in recommendation of the machine could not avail as a warranty. At this stage Mr Fraser asked permission to call a witness for the plaintiff. This witness had not been available at the previous hearing. Mr Hosking said that Mr Fraser should have called tho witness before ho (Mr Hosking) made his opening address. He, however, would offer no serious objection. Permission was given, and Mr Fraser called

Patrick Hannan, who deposed that he was a miner of thirty-four years' experience. He had tried to work Rushton's machine. He had tried both dry and wet processes, but found it of no use. Even supposing there had been no cocoanut matting employed he did not think the Btuff could have got away. William Benjamin Walters, defendant, deposed that ho had his machine patented in New Zealand, New South Wales, West Australia, and Victoria. Had been making the machines for about eight months, and had sold ten. They had gone to different parts of tho colony—Auckland, Hokitika, and Otago. Had written to those who had purchased machines, but had got no repließ. The only men who had complained were Rushton and M'Culloch. He had tried the machines in his yard and in the Water of Leith. He had had hundreds of miners looking at his operations with the machine. He had put through about 6cwt of stuff in seven minutes. Had mado no gold-saving experiments in Dunedin; he had not been able to get the necessary material. Had a two days' trial at Hyde, and the machine worked satisfactorily. In all his trials the machine had never got choked. One of the points of the machine was the "concussion" which kept the Btuff always in motion, and the tables being sloped the stuff was helped along. When Rushton came to him about a machine witness took one to pieces and explained the working as well as he was able. Never suggested the use of cocoanut matting, and would not do so because it neutralised the effectiveness of the machine. Rushton paid he might use cocoanut matting, and witness said if he took his advice he would not do so, because his plates would be no use with matting on the top of them. After Rushton had taken the machine he bought to St. Bathans he had tampered with the pump; for when the pump was sent back it was so tightly screwed down that no machine could work satisfactorily with it. [Pump produced.] Edward Greig deposed that he was a plumber, and repaired M'Culloch's machine at the Rock and Pillar. When ho got there the machine waß all out of order, and they were working it so that the quicksilver was being worn off tho plates. He put the machine in order, and it worked all right. On the following morning when he again went to the machine he found it had been removed on to a bank. The men Baid the pump would not work, but the reason for that was that they had not screwed up the pipes. Witness did what was required, and the machine worked all right. M'Culloch said he would not take the machine. He considered he had been taken in about tho price. When witness left to come back to town the machine was working quite freely and well. Had seen several trials of the machines in Dunedin, and he had no doubt about what they could do. M'Culloch's machine when put in order worked as well as a machine possibly could work.

John Berrell gave evidence as to seeing a trial of one of Walters's machines. He was in company with two miners. Three sacks of shingle were put through in about seven or eight minutes. The machine appeared to him to work quite smoothly. Alfred Robertson, engineer, deposed that he did the ironwork for Walters's machine. He made the pumps. The one that came back from Rushton's machine was certainly not in the condition in which it was when he put it on the machine. It was so tightly screwed down that tho plunger would not work.

Sydney Walter Lodge deposed that he was a gold, miner residing at Hyde, and had worked one of Walters's gold amalgamating machines for some time on the banks of tho Taieri, and it gave satisfaction. The machine put through the stuff as fast as he wished it to go. He believed a fully-manned machine would put through two tons an hour. The boy he had was able to work the machine without assistance. Cocoanut matting would be very detrimental to the working of the machine. Witness tried towelling on the oscillating plates, but they had a very bad effect, and caused choking. Matting would be very much worse than towelling. The machine saved fine gold. He thought the machine was an honest one, and that the principle was excellent. This concluded the evidence, and His Worship suggested that a trial of the machine should be given on Water of Leith gravel, in the presence of a competent engineer or miner.

This suggestion was adopted, and the case was adjourned for a week.