SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIII, Issue 398, 16 May 1922, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CLAIM BY SAWMILLER9,

VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFFS.

Tho sawmilling case concerning the alleged non-delivery of plain, and an alleged breach of warranty in respect of a break-bench, in which the parlies wen; E. C. Berkhan, J, Howard and William Robinson, sawmillers, of Halcombe, plain tiffs, and Oscar Andrews and Coy., machinery merchants, Palmerston North, defendants, was concluded at the Supremo Conn yesterday, before His Honour Mr Justice 110.-king and a jury of twelve. The plaint ill's claimed £oso for alleged loss by non-delivery of a machine hauler, and £SO in respect of I lie alleged broach of warranty. Mr Cunningham, of Wanganui, appeared for plaintiff's and Mr C_ooper for defendants. An amended claim was submitted by Mr Cunningham, this having been computed on a ratio of output from the mill by bullock labour, compared with what the output would have been had a mechanical

hauler been used. The point of admitting the amendment wa.s reserved by His Honour.

Mr Cooper, in addressing the jury, said a point lo be carefully considered was that the plaintiffs had never had any practical experience in working a hauler, and hence they could not know how the possession of such a machine would affect l.))eir profits. David Henry .Melville deposed thai he had endeavoured to deliver the hauler to plaintiffs, but a soft swamp had prevented its transportation, since the machine weighed four tons. Three men could work a hauler, and he considered that it would give moi'O cllicient service' than a learn of bullocks.

John Moore, sawmiller, Halcombe, stated that lie knew the country in the vicinity of plaintiffs' mill. The limber was scattered and the ground broken, and he thought bullocks could haul logs on such land more quickly and cheaper than a hauler would. Leonard D. Simmonds, sawmiller, of Pahnerston North, corroborated the evidence of the last witness. Oscar Andrews, one of the defendants, sakl thai no particular type of break-bench, had been mentioned when negotiations regarding Ihe purchase of the _ sawmilling plant were in hand. A definite time for jhe delivery of the plant had nol been stated, although a suggestion that delivery would be complete within two weeks might have been made,

His Honour charged (he jury to answer a number of issues. The issues as staled were answered by the jury in the following manner, after a brief adjournment: Was a statement made by the defendants that the plant would be delivered within a fortnighi troni Uctober 20?—Yes. Was this statement made before the receipt was .signed or after?—After. Was a statement made by the defendants lo the effect that delivery of the hauler would be dependant on the weather conditions permitting it to be brought across the swamp?—No! Was Ihe hauler delivered within a reasonable Mine, reckoning from October 20? —No. What damages are the plaintiffs entitled 10 recover for delay in delivery ?—±i 150. Did the defendants warrant a break-bench to be of a certain make?—lf "yes"'then was it made by that linn?—No. Then what damages are the plaintiffs entitled to recover for the difference in kind ?—£4o.

The- Court then adjourned till 9,45 a.ni to-day.