SALE OF AN ENGINE.

Evening Post, Volume LXIX, Issue 119, 22 May 1905, Page 6

SALE OF AN ENGINE.

CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT. His Honour tho Cliiof Justice this afternoon took up tho hearing of tho case of Alexander Robort Hislop, general engineering furnisher, v. Joseph Nathan and Co., Limited, claim and counlor-claim in connection with thd salo of an engine. The statement of claim sot forth that in or about July, 1904, plaintiff agreed in writing to sell and defendant to buy a doublo cylinder ongino made by the Stanley Air Compressor Compajiy, England, with pulley, governor, and flywheel complete, for £325, delivered at Wellington and Manawatu Railway Station; that the ongino was delivered as agreed on or abowt Bth August; that defendants have- not paid the agreed price, and still refuse to pay it, wnereforo plaintiff claims £325. Tho statement of defence sots forth that the engine is not in conformity with .lie- agreement, and that defendants hayo rejected it, and aro willing to roturn it. For a further defonco, it is set forth that tho onginc was bought subject to the following conditions and warranties : — On condition that tho cylinders should bo 12in in diameter ; on condition (and this was warranted by plaintiff) that the engine should bo in good order, should run smoothly and effectively when erocted, and should be fitted for tho purpose for which th« plaintiff's knowledgo it was squired by defend ants ; plaintiff also represented und war ranted that tho ongino had been in use only throo months. Defendants, however, found that tho cylinders wcro 16in in diamatcr; that the engine was so dofectivo in its parts and in its running w to n ontircly unfitted for the purpose for which it waa .cquired, and wholly useless; -and that the ongino had been in use- for sevonil years. They allego that in consequence of thw they have suffered damage, and countorclaim against plaintiff for £325 damages. In his defonco to counter-clniln, plaintiff demos Unit the engine was not in conformity with the agreement, nnd that defendants have rejected it and are willing to return it, He denies all the alleged conditions and- warranties, and denies that he warranted that the engine was fitted for liny particular purpose, or that it had been in use only three months. Prior to its delivery and acceptance, the diamoter of tho cylinders was known to defendants. He denies defendants' allegations us to dc-fecta of tho engine, and denies that defendants bavo suffered damage. For a further defence, plu in tiff says that the engine was approved by defendants' engtneor at time of delivery ; that ufter acceptance of delivery plaintiff complied with certain requisitions of defendants' ongincer, who had examined it, and the engine was worked by defendants for sovcral weeks. In connection with this caso, a third party notice bus boon issued to Geo. Griffiths and Co., of West port, engineers, notifying them that plaintiff claims to bo indemnified by them against his liability in respect of the alleged breaches of warranty or condition, oa the ground that ho brought tho engine iron* Griffiths and Co. on the same terms and conditions, and sub. ject to tho same warranties as those on which he sold it to defendants. - Mr. Skervott appeared for tho plaintiff and Mr. Myers for the defendant. (Left sitting.)