DISPUTE REGARDING MILKING PLANT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 8 April 1924, Page 2

DISPUTE REGARDING MILKING PLANT

£IOO CLAIMED

Before Mr T. E. Maun sell at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, Edwin Alfred Barker proceeded against J. B. Mae Ewan and Co., claiming' a refund of £IOO of the sum of £2lO paid conditionally on milking plant, < on .the ground that the plant supplied was i not in first-class condition as Tlio Company counter-claimed for £37 13s 3d, balance of purchase anouey. Mr Samuel appeared for plaintiff and Mr Cheek for 1 defendant. ■ Edwin Alfred Barker, until lately dairy farmer at’ Tutaki,; near Murchi[sen, deposed that Dobson, the company’s representative, called on him i m the autumn of the year before last ; re a milking plant. W ltness gave an order for a two-cow plant, the plant ; to he new and in first-class order, the best and latest, = He knew nothing ■about milking plants, and-as he was ‘some 16 miles from Murchison he wanted everything of the best to i avoid .trouble. Dobson said he would have everything of the best that Mac- ! Ewans’ could supply. The purchase I price was £2lO cash or £240 on terms, [/with the right to pay off at apj time. Tho plant was erected some two months before the milking season started. Coward, the engineer, who elected the plant, came along to work it and show witness. This would he' about early in October. It did not work at alt at-'the start, and Coward was there many;times getting it to work, although lie did not succeed in working it in a first-class manner. The trouble iin the first place was n- getting the teat cups to hold up. The plant had -to be worked with a stand for the cups. One of tho teat claws was a very old one, a different pattern-from the other. Witness then' went and looked at neighbours’ plants and found he had a very different’ plant from theirs. Witness produced the teat claw. He had pointed out its secondhand nature to Coward, and he (Coward) said, “Certainly, at is an old one, and must have been sent by mistake,” also explaining there Were new parts and old. parts in the same

building! WitilONß produlietl il flip With letters “L.K.G.” almost unreadivblct All the cups were much the same. Coward’s explanation was that tho cups had been damaged by sen water coining from Australia and had lind In be re-polished. He (Coward) laid laid to help re-polish them himself. Tho milk pipe! Wits ilbw blit tho rubber oil the end of the pipe wus roughly cut and old, as if it had been out I'roili an old bicycle tube. The pulsator was Uot working well, Coward filed a hole. The tups oil tile milk pipes leaked and Coward soaped them up. This, was to prevent the air going in. Tho tap on tile engine was leaking badly and Coward got a new tap straight away. The engine also appeared not to be new. Dobson said the claw was an old one and put it in his pocket, Witness asked for it back again and it WAS given him. Dobson said tile reason why it was not like his neighbours was that his had been made ill Australia and theirs in New Zealand. Witness asked Dobson to remove the plant. After much negotiation MaeEwaii agreed to remove the plant last spring. Witness’ said he. always offered to pay for the use he had had of the plant. The plant had not been removed, and ns tho sea-son was approaching he was forced to use it. Witness forwarded a cheque for £2lO, at the smo time claiming a refund of the difference in the difference ill price between that of a new one alia tile price he considered this one was worth. To Mr Cheek: The plant, after erection, put through a bucket of water satisfactorily. He did not notice the worn cap; until die commenced milking. Witness did not read the order over. He did not know when the plant arrived in Murchison. He believed Mr Spiers carted the plant to Murchison. So far as he could remember it was •stored in a;shed. He did not open any case until Coward came. The company sent another claw in place of the old one without charge, also a new benzine tap. When he sold tjhc place lie told the purchaser there was a dispute regarding the plant. Witness took the intending purchaser into i his lawyer’s and showed him the correspondence regarding the plant. To Mr Samuel: The tent mentioned was for accommodation.

Roland Richard Kerr, farmer, of Bclgrove, said the plant in question appeared to he a secondhand machine with some new parts. The caps appeared to have been used before. They were worn. Witness had been working an L.K.G. plant for one season in the Rai, and had at other times worked various plants for other people. '• The cup produced appeared to hs worn. Tlie L.K.G. mark was almost completely gone. Witness would know new parts of a L.K.S. plant if shown to him. As a prospective buyer lie thought the machine was a secondhand one and was not worth more than £IOO. He felt qualified to estimate the cost, of milking plants. To Mr Cheek: He could not say the value of a 24 hip, engine, or the value of an engine after it had been in operation six months, hut he could give tho valuation of tho plant as a whole. The plant had been working about three months when he saw it.

George Vincent Edmonds, engineer, working for his .brother in Nelson, said that .two years ago .he was a returned soldier settler in the Murchison district. He had a nlant installed, a perfectly hew plant. Witness saw Barker’s plant in September, 1922. This appeared to be rather shabby compared to bis. There was solder in tho claw of Barker’s plant. The finish of Barker’s cups was duller, as if they had been worn. Dobson explained that Barker’s cups had been affected by the action of sea water in coming oyer. Ilis own cups did not become pitted. Witness cleaned bis plant with hot water and soda. To His Worship: The cup (produced) appeared to have been in use more than three months. It was considerably knocked about.

Continuing, witness said he would not have bought the plant as a new one.

To Mr Cheek: His own plant was nice and shiny. Caroline Jane Barker, wife of the plaintiff, deposed that Coward came to the house to get some soap to > soap the taps up. The rubber- looked old also. Witness’ was not satisfied with a. hole in the’releaser which was soldered up. The cups were all very much worn. .Dobson said the difference in the cups was that theirs were made in Australia' and their neighbours’ in New Zealand. Coward said their cups bad been i affected by- salt water. Coward said the badly soldered claw had been' sent by mistake. All the claws had one screw tap. Dobson said it was an advantage do • have' one of the tubes blocked up at one end..- . ; Counsel: Could you see -why this was ■... ■ : Witness: Of course not. Continuing, witness said Hie tent Acts like a charm • That’s what thousands say of ..“NAZOL” —the handiest and surest remedy for coughs and colds.,

had beeii Used for UcCCtifHttedfition purposes.- Tlio eases were put in the shed. Nothing wliateVer was put in the tent To Mr Cheek: Tbe pint was washed lirst in cold water and then with hot. \Vitness had never used soda. - For tin? defence Mr Cheek edited David Dickie, manager of the machinery department o/ MncEwan and Co. Jit May, 1922, witness deposed that plaintiff ordered through ft traveller k tivo-Cdw triliking phiiit.- The order Was for a- rieW plant, They never sent out Secondhand prtrt-s with flt'st-ciass piant-s, The cost of the ttflW piaht without tiie engine was £9O cash, or on three years ’terms, £l-02.- ‘ The value of the engine was £75 cash, oil three years’ terms, £B7. The plant was shipped ten 31st- Mav. On 7th- Septeinher the letter from Darker complaining of tile plant and stating that some o i it Wtlfl Second hand was received. Coward reported- that the claw appeared to be'secondhand, and another cue was sent over. It was not admitted that the claw was secondhand, but the ileW one was sent to satisfy their client. The other, one should have been sent hack. Witness detailed the correspondence. Barker interviewed hint in Wellington .and witness endeavoured to arrange a settlement. Witness offered to replace any parts with which Barker was dissatisfied, hut Darker stuck to his offer of- £l5O for the plant, which witness could not accept. There were extraitems in addition to the cow plant, counter shaft, pulleys ,and brackets, in the job. The cash price of the milkjug plant was £202. The actual difference between the prices of first and secondhand plants was £37. There was no question about being able to distinguish between a new and secondhand cup. \V lien in use the cup soon became pitted. The hole and solder in the releaser did not affect the milking in any: way. • •; • To Mr Samuel: He could not sav whether there were two screw caps on the plant sent to Barker. He could not say personally that the whole plant was first-class,- but his orders ivero that all he first-class. £9O A\as the most they Would get for a- secondhand tivo-cow plant. He could not ray Avliether a- plug Avas sent out Avitli this particular machine. He did not know. The cIaAV (produced) appeared to have been re-soldered. A. shipment coming from Australia Ayas damaged by sea water some fn r e years ago. The eAips Avere repolished. The indistinctness of the cAip marking was due to indistinct marking, not wear. Engineers had been severely reprimanded for Aising soap in fixing up a plant. As a temporary expedient it Avould be suitable in certain parts. Cyril Harvey, storeman in machinery department, - said the .secondhand plant, parts were in another part of the store altogether, and it Avould be impossible to make a mistake. He produced a number of parts varying in colour, tbe brightness being due to some parts being kept from tbe light. In 1922 the claAvs Avere supplied with only one cap. He would guarantee plaintiff’s order Avas all filled with ncuv parts. The shipment from Australia Avas not seriously affected.

To Mr Samuel : It Avas betAveen four and five years ago when the shipment became affected by sea Avater. He had assistance in the store during the busy time in the; winter;months, but no boys Were employed. Orders for secondhand plants Avere made up Avitli some now parts. It \yould not be possible for a secondhand plant to have been senf. to Barker and his plant to someone 'else avlio had ordered a secondhand plant. To Mr Check: The erecting engineers had a copy of. the specifications and AA'ould know if a mistake had been made.

John Dobson', salesman of J. B. MncEwan and Co., said ho had seen plaintiff on several occasions re liis securing an L.G.Iv. machine. Witness said it was-Tii's recollection that plaintiff got a copy of the order, but he could • not say so definitely. Plaintiff complained that the piant was secondhand. Witness had gone there on 23rd December to take the plant out, but plaintiff wanted them to leave it till Ist January. The plant was stored in Spiers’, garage, near the door, for for some time* and it might have been nossible for the rain to get at the boxes slightly. To Mr Samuel: On ’23rd December, Barker offered £l5O for the machine. He did not say to Barker that, the claw was evidently secondhand. Witness said Barker’s cups were • different fiom other people’s owing to being manufactured in Australia. The first claws with two caps that he saw was in September 1922. Edmonds and Ellison’s plant was delivered two or three months after Barker’s. . | Ernest Harold Coward, outside engineer for the company, said part of the plant when in boxes at plaintiff’s awaiting erection, was in a shed and part in a tent. The plating had rather a dull appearance when unpacked. It . took three or four days to put the plant together. Plaintiff made no /Complaints at first. Witness saw the plant three weeks later when he started it running: Certain adjustments had to be made. When these were made the plant worked lovely. From time to. i time witness visited Barker and made various adjustments as required ,which were no more than the a verage. Witness' told Barker that the claw certainy had a secondhand appearance ' and he would replace it. On 22nd December witness, on instructions from" Dobson, went with Dobson to take down the plant. Barker asked that they leave the plant till the Ist January. The plant was running satisfactorily. Another visit was" made in April, when: no suggestion about removal was made. Witness had installed some 25 machines in his first year with thef firm and he had been with them six. years. To Mr Samuel: Witness could not remember whether lie had filed the pulsators on two neighbours’ machines.. ~ To the Bench : If a. cow was not used to machines it might be necessary to prop up the cups. Dobson gave him the order to take down the plant. Witness could not explain how it was there was nothing in the correspondence referring to plaintiff’s request to retain it -till Ist January. The brand was indistinct in most of the cups. The rubber mentioned previously, he himself cut from sheeting sent out. The markings on the cups were mostly all indistinct. Mr Samuel recalled plaintiff .in regard to Dobsons’ and Coward’s evidence that lie asked that' the plant not lie'taken down on 23rd December. Witness was opening the gate when they arrived. The cream cart was live miles or more away. Dobson came to see what he was growling about. When Dobson said he had told him (witness) he had come to remove the plant he was telling a deliberate lie. The-first time witness made the offer of £l5O was to Mr Dickie many months after Dobson had been out". Dobson or Coward never mentioned moving the plant, he would have jumped-at the chance if they had. Thi a was what he wanted. This was all the evidence. Decision was reserved.