MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16310, 17 August 1916, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

DIKI'LTK CONCERNING PAINT. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday. i before Mr. ('. C. Kettle. S.M.. the rase | Perry Madon (Mr. C. ('. Chalmers) v. [ Patorson and Robertson i?lr. F. Lawrie) was continued. P-oceedings had been adjourned from Tuesday. The case for the plaintiff, a? outlined by Mr. Chalmers-, was that. Maden had purchased from the defendant firm two kinds of paint of a certain brand to paint hi? house. The salesman had guaranteed that the goods were of firstclass quality, and could be used successfully by any person carrying out the directions supplied with " them. One kind of paint was used as an under-coat. end the other, an enamel paint, as a finishing coat. The plaintiff had followed the directions, but the work had proved entirely unsatisfactory, allegedly owing to the inferior quality of the paint used as an under-coating. Two experts pave evidence in support of this allegation. For the defence five experts stated that [ the finishing coat only had proved unsatisfactory, evidently because some such substance as turpentine had been added I to the enamel paint, used for it. I Mr. Chalmers raised the point that at the time of sale the paint for the undercoat was not up to the standard required by law. in that it was not merchantable because, as shown l>v the evidence tur- ! pentine had had to he added to it and it had had to he strained before beinc j used. | The magistrate said the question to decide was whether the paint fop the under-coating was merchantable. H e added that the evidence showed distinctly that the under-coating was satisfactory and therefore the onlv damage if there was any at all. lay in the fact that the piaintiff had had to add turpentine to and strain tho paint. He reserved his doc isiou.