SUPREME COURT.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLIV, Issue 77, 7 April 1910, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS

(Before His Honour Mr Justice Cooper.)

ANDREWS v. MINISTER FOR

RAILWAYS

In the case of Catherine Andrews i against the Minister for Railways, a ' claim for £1000 damages for injuries ; received in the railway collision at ; Blenheim on June 14th, 1909, his, Honour last evening summed up at • great length, and the jury retired . to consider their verdict. , After three' hours' consideration the ; iury returned with a three-fourths verdict for plaintiff for £550. The amount of costs was left over till this morning to adjust. . The Court sat at 10 o'clock this m<Mr UMcNab said that he would ask for costs for second day and for second counsel. . n , His Honour entered up judgment for plaintiff for £550, costs on the highest scale, allowing second counsel for one day only. The total amount of solicitors' fees amounted to £faJ bs,. to which will have to be added witnesses' expenses and disbursements. LANE v.~NICHOLLS. In the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, E. R. Lane (Mr Mills) claimed from J. Nicholte (Mr G. Rogers, with him Mr McNab) £100 on a promissory note. The defendant entered a counter-claim for £748. The following jury was empanelled: —W. J. O'Shea, E. J. Walsh, J. H. \ndrell, W. Gifford, G. Graham, S. Adams, F. Mills, H. B. Hodson, E. H. Eccles, W. Gridley, W. Conder, F. Dames. Mr Eccles was chosen foreman. Mr Rogers said that the counterclaim entered by his client enabled him to appear as the plaintiff in this action. The amount of the counterclaim was for the full value of an engine supplied by Mr Lane for a launch built by him for Mr Nicholls, which was of the Marine Monarch type. The facts were that Mr Lane entered into an agreement with Mr Nicholls some time- in 1908 to build a launch to be between 36 and 40 horsepower. The launch was built, and Mr Lane persuaded Mr Nicholls to have a Marine Monarch engine, his firm in Auckland b^ing . agents v for that brand of engine^: which was considered to be of a good class. The hull of the launch was to cost £400, and the engine £548. Mr Nicholls alleged that the engine was worthless, and that he had to do away with it, and in consequence he was suing for damages and the full cost of the engine. THE EVIDENCE. John Nicholls, plaintiff by counterclaim in the action, stated that in October, 1908, he arranged with the defendant to build a new boat, to cost £400 for the hull and £548 for a Monarch Marine engine. Mr Mills: There was only one price —£948 for the launch completed — and not two prices. The witness, continuing, said that Mr Lane told him that £528 represented the price of the engine, and the other £20 for fitting jt in. The witness originally intended to have a Zealandia engine placed in the boat, but Mr Lane had written to him and advised him to have the Monarch engine, to which he agreed, thinking that Mr Lane would not "palm" any rubbish off on to him. The trial trip took place on Friday, March 12th, 1909, when they went about nine miles. The engine did not run too satisfactorily. It stopped, and it was about ten minutes before Mr Lane got it to work again. On Sunday, March 14, at 9 o'clock iri thejmornmg they left Picton for Blenheim, arriving here at midnight. They called in at Port Underwood on the way - up. On Wednesday, March 17, they went out over ihe bar for the purpose of trawling. Mr Lane's engineer, Mr Wilson, was in charge of the engine. After about four hours' working they discovered that the front crank bearing had burnt out. This was the first trouble. They tried to get the engine started again, but without success, the cause being that it would not go when got over the compression. There was- no fumes other than the ordinary ones coming from the engine-room. They were towed in over the bar by the 'launch Challenger, and on the following day, in response to a telegram from the witness, Mr Lane himself came through, and put an oil feeder with the mainfront connecting rod. The engineer tried twice to get the engine to go, once when inside the bar, and also outside. This was on the Thursday before Mr Lane arrived. They effected some repairs, putting in a new connecting-rod to remedy the bearing worn out. There was a heavy deposit of thick grease in the crank case under the cylinder. He asked Mr Lane why it was there, and he received no reply. The witness also asked Mr Wilson what it was doing there, and he practically said he did not know. The engine worked after the alterations, and on Monday, the 22nd, they went trawling. They worked for a time, and then had some trouble with the firing gear, the point oi the sparking-plug appearing to wear away. Alter half an hour's work tor three men they got the engine workin^ again. The fumes which came through the cocks were almost suffocating, and Mr Wilson used to go from the engine-room to the cabin whenever he had an opportunity. He remarked that the fumes were pretty bad. On the Tuesday Mr Wilson left the launch, and the witness took charge of the engine-room. He had trouble with the engine every day, the fumes being such that he had to get out of the engine-room until they disappeared. They went out again on the 24th, and after working four hours experienced the -same trouble. The -same trouble arose daily. He did not consider the boat fit to go for an excursion trip on the Sunday. They did not work until the following Thursday, owing to the unfavorable weather. The week following they worked four days, but with the usual result. It used to take three men to start the engine, as it refused to fire when they started the fly-wheel. Some days they would be engaged for two hours in trying to turn the wheel, and were often knocked out in doing so. They had to clean the grease out of the crank case every three days, and they used to get several handfuls. The fly-wheel exercise was a daily occurrence.

The Court rose at 6 p;m. until this morning at 10 a.m.

trouble and he could work it no longer. He again complained to MiLane. Mr Lane promised to come through on the Wednesday following. He did not come through till the Thursday fortnight following. When - the witness complained Lane talked of putting on a bigger fly-wheel and a larger propeller. Wilson cut down the mainsprings of the exhaust and about an inch of the inlet valves. He also put in a fresh guide. He went away on August 13th without starting the engine. On the 14th the witness and Mr Cresswell ran the engine. They went down the river for a run. Mr Cresswell was an en- ! gineer. Mr Cresswell tested the engine to a certain extent. The wit- : ness never used the boat after that. The engine never pulled the trawl properly". The trawling speed was between three and four miles an hour. The engine could pull the trawl by itself only about one and ' a-half miles an hour. They could not trawl to pay without their sails. He used 23 gallons of lubricating oil for the whole period. With th.-> boat they worked about eight hours a day, and two or three hours they wasted every day with the engine. Sometimes the greater part of the day was lost. They did not do well, but the fish were thick, and with a good engine he reckoned he would have done £100 or more better. When the boat was laid up he stopped fishing until 13th September, when he hired another boat. He had to pay £2 per week for the hire of the boat. He had paid Mr Lane £400 down on the purchase of the boat, and the boat had been idle since he laid her up. To Mr Mills: He had five years' experience of driving oil engines. His experience was with Union engines. He was not a certificated engineer. He had not had a certificated en-, gineer on board in his employ. On the trial trip on 13th March he went down about three or four miles. When the engine stopped with him there was something wrong with the vaporiser. ,H£ never asked Mr Lane how slowly the engine could run. Lane was on deck at the time the engine stopped. It did not matter to him whether the engine could run slowly or not. With the Union engine there was no stoppage on the trial trip and very little after that. When the Monarch engine was started again she smoked and rattled a great lot. He took possession on the ,13th March, although, the trial was not very satisfactory to him. He '■■ went with the boat to get ballast, a , journey of about 26 miles there and back. When the ballast was taken i in there was some trouble starting the : engine. A big shark was reported in Shakspere Bay, and on the Sunday morning they went to look at it. They were only there a few minutes, and they returned again. He could not be certain' of the time he left Picton. He left shortly after for the Wairau Bar, and they put in to Port Underwood. The engine was not running smoothly and was thumping. He understood that kerosene was just as good as benzine if put through the right process. Benzine would flash quicker. He noticed that the revolutions per minute in the catalogue were not the same as in the document which had been given him by Mr Lane. He complained of this. Mr Lane said that evidently a misprint had been made in the document. The revolutions of the engine were too much for him, and the catalogue: number of revolutions were more than the document said the engine would be. They wanted to run slowly for ( trawling. He complained shortly after he took over the boat from MiLane. Mr Lane offered to put in a new propeller to bring down the immber of revolutions. The propeller was to be put in in Picton, but witness did not go. On 17th March the front crank bearing melted out. Mr Lane saw it 3 but did not tell witness the cause of it. Lane did not say that it was neglect of lubrication. Mr Lane and Wilson brought the boat up to Blenheim from the bar after the crank fired. Witness was not in the boat. He thought the sight lubrication a good system, and it always worked satisfactorily. He could see whether the oil was going into the cylinder or not. If the oil went in properly the cylinders could not be scored. (The engine itself was here brought into court.) „ The witness stood down for the purpose of allowing the engineer of the steamer Blenheim to give evidence. William Wood, certificated engineer on the s.s. Blenheim, said he had been asked to have a look at the engine in Nicholls's boat. Mr Wilson asked him to look at it when the boat first came round. Mr Wilson started the engine, but had great difficulty in doing so. It ran very badly. It made too much noise and ran sluggishly. For a new engine it should have started easier and run better. It made a good deal of noise. He had not thoroughly inspected the engine. He only visited the engine once. He inquired if there were half compression cams or cocks on the engine, and was told that there were not. To Mr Mills: He had a fair experience of explosive engines, but not particularly kerosene. The engine was running on benzine when he saw it. He did not see any alteration ill the cock to the kerosene tank. Mr Nicholls's examination was then continued. The witness pointed out and named the various parts of the engine produced. His Honor's attention was here drawn to the fact that three experts were upon the jury, and the solicitors adjourned for the purpose of talking over the proposition of reducing the jury to the three experts. Upon returning* into court Mr Rogers said that counsel ver.e agreed that six of the jurymen be discharged, the six retained being all acquainted with the working of oil engines. The following were retained: — Messrs Eccles, O'Shea, Walsh, Graham, Gridley, and Mills. The question of damages, if any, was left to the Judge alone. His Honor said that there was no reflection upon those jurors discharged. Those retained bad a technical knowledge, and would be able*to go into the matter exhaustively. A jury view was then asked for, and the jury retired with experts nominated by both sides, to go through the engine thoroughly. The viewers nominated were Mr W. Q. Cresswell (nominated by Mr McNab), and Mr Emil Wulff (nominated by. Mr Mills). Counsel were not to take part in the review. Mr Cresswell was. to point out to the jury those parts of the engine which were alleged to be defective, and Mr Wulff to point out generally the machinery and the parts effective, and show the grounds upon which Mr Lane claimed, that the machinery was effective.

(Left Sitting.)