SOUTH OTAGO.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20316, 26 January 1928, Page 6

SOUTH OTAGO.

BALCLUTHA DISTRICT NEWS. (From Ocjb Own Correspondent.) BALCLUTHA, January 25. MAGISTRATE’S COURT.' A sitting of the Alagistrate’a Court was held to-day before Air H. J. Dixon, S.AI. SUNDAY TRADING. Rubena Sproule M’Cormick was charged with on Sunday, January 22, keeping open her shop at Kaka Point for the purpose of selling goods that were not being consumed on the premises.— Constable Potts said that on the date in question he had visited Kaka Point, and found that defendant was doing a trade in ices that were being taken away, and . was also selling chocolates and other confectionery.—A. fine of 20s, with costs (10s), was imposed. Duncan M'Kechnie, storekeeper at Kaka Point, was similarly charged.— Constable Potts said that business was being done from the back of the shop. Ice creams were being sold in this case also. —-A fine of 20s, with costs (10s), was imposed. BY-LAW BREACHES.

Tlios. Murray, Port Molyncux, who was charged with permitting pillion riding on his motor cycle in Clyde street, Balclutha, on December 20, was convicted and ordered to pay costs (12s) . Angus Al’Diarmid, charged with driving a motor car in Clyde street on December 20 without a rear light, did not appear, and was fined ss, with costs

(10s). Cochrane G. Weir, Stirling, was charged with turning a motor car in Clyde street, from John street, on December 1, on the wrong side of the road.-—A fine of 10s, with costs (12s), was imposed. MAINTENANCE.

Ja,mes Rowe, Dunedin, was charged with the disobedience of a maintenance order in respect of his illegitimate child. The arrears were £ll 6s.—Mr W alter appeared for complainant, and there was no appearance of defendant, who sent a letter stating that he had been out of work, but had just started on a job.—The Magistrate made an order for payment forthwith, with solicitor’s fee £1 Is, in default 14 days imprisonment; the order to be suspended for 14 days to enable defendant to make pavment. ALLEGED ASSAULT.

David Burnett Sievwright, of Kaka Point, was charged with, on December 14, at Kaka Point, assaulting James Robertson by striking him with a stick. The informant asked for sureties of the peace.— Mr Kelly appeared for informant, and Mr for defendant, who pleaded not guifty.—Mr Kelly said that two witnesses for the prosecution had not received their summonses, although they had been sent by post a fortnight ago, and he would have to ask for an adjournment.—Mr Grigor said in that case he would have to apply for costs.—The Magistrate said the subpoenses had been sent by registered letter, and he would reserve the question of costs. —J. E. Kelly Brown, medical practitioner at Balclutha, gave evidence that the plaintiff consulted him on December 20 about a sore arm. The arm was discoloured and tender, and there was a certain loss of power, and swelling. It was mostly above the elbow. The injury was quite consistent with the informant’s statement that it was caused by a heavy blow from a stick.—The case was then adjourned till next court day. CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases:—R. D. Webster (Mr Walter) v. V. Keen (13s 8d), with costs (8s); J. Junge (Mr Bremner) v. T. White (£1 4s 9d), with costs (9s); Sid White (Mr Kelly) v; William Aitkenhead (£7 2s 6d), with costs (15s) and solicitor’s fee (16s 6d). JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.

J. H. Stevenson (Mr Walter) v. Allen Shand—Claim £8 5s 6d on a judgment summons. —The debtor did not appear, and was ordered to pav the amount claimed forthwith with 15s 6d solicitor’s fee, in default 10s days in Dunedin gaol. Jago, Biggs, Ltd. (Mr Walter) v. C. Clutterbuck.—Claim £3 3s 9d.—Debtor, who did not appear, was ordered to pay forthwith, in default four days in Balclutha lock-up. SALE OF PRINTING -,-ACHINE,

Russell, Mills, and M'Naughton (Clutha Leader Proprietary) v. Algie Bros. —Claim £lO3 13s, for an alleged breach of warranty in th© sale of a perfector printing machine. The plaintiffs claimed £l3 13s 10d costs of repairing the machine, and £9O for loss of the use of the machine, damage to newsprint, and loss of time (18 weeks at £5 a week). The case had been heard at a special sitting on December 15, with the exception of one witness for the defence, who had been too ill to attend. Mr R. S. Bremner appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Kelly (instructed by Mr C. J. L. White) for the defendants. The Magistrate suggested that Mr Bremner should amend the statement of claim, to make the £l3 13s lOd a claim for special damages, and this was done. David W. C. Weir gave evidence that he had formerly worked for Algie Bros., and was with that firm when the perfector was set up for the purpose of printing the Free Press. Witness fed and worked the machine. The last issue of the Free Press (October 1, 1926) was printed on the new machine. The machine was in running order, but had ripped a few papers. That he attributed largely to his own inexperience with a perfector. He improved in its feeding as he went on, and became familiar with the machine. Witness worked for the plaintiffs from the beginning of October till the end of February, his chief duty being printing the papers. The perfector was stopped for a fortnight on one occasion, and he printed the paper on the auxiliary plant at the Free Press. The machine was stopped because Eusselt considered it was tearing too many papers. He could not say exactly how many issues were missed on the perfector. The perfector printed the Frees Press up till the end of 1926, and there was no loss of time then. It was in January that he saw M'Naughton tampering with the machine. He remembered two engineers coming from Dunedin for Messrs Algie to inspect the machine. They cut the rubbers on the grippers and set the grippeis. That was practically all they did. Was the perfector the only cause of delay in making the paper late?—No, the linotypes caused a lot of delay. There ■were only two being worked out of three. Witness, continuing, said he was certain that there would not be 300 papers spoiled in an issue through the perfector, although there might have been once or twice. No complaints had been made | by plaintiffs to Messrs Algie about the machine, so far as witness knew, or to witness. He had worked with Irvine and Currie when they fixed the machine for Algie Bros., and there was no suggestion that their work was only temporary. It was possible that the vibration might have something to do with faulty printing. If Mr Russell stated that 16 hours were lost on one occasion through the fault of the perfector witness would deny that. The time was not lost through a defective machine, but through the linotypes, and in jilace of getting the formes to start at 7.30 p.m. he had not got them sometimes till 10 p.m t Cross-examined by Mr Bremner, M'Naughton was not “ tampering ” with the machine, but endeavouring to get it to run right. Mr J. S. Algie had never tinkered with the machine, and witness would not suggest that Mr Russell should

have gone to him about it. Witness held to his statement that the machine was in good printing order when sold, although it did tear a few papers.

His Worship, in giving judgment, said there was no question that the machine had been sold under a warranty to put it in order by the vendors. There was £l5O difference in the values placed ou the machine by the two valuers, and defendants agreed to put it in order if the higher price were given. There was no dispute as to the guarantee, i erely as to what was proper running order. Currie’s evidence, on which he chiefly relied, was that the work he did for Algics on the machine was only temporary. It was obvious from the evidence that it was not in running order. Algies may not have known that, as it was evidently an intricate machine that could only be dealt with by experts, and for that reason Russell was some time in finding out what was the matter. It was evident that as time went on the machine did not improve. He had no reason to doubt Currie’s evidence, and hence tke plaintiffs must succeed to some extent. The £l3 13s lOd would be allowe-’ as special damages to the plaintiffs. Some time had elapsed before Russell and Co. did anything, notwithstanding that the machine was not vrking properly, and on that account he would allow five weeks at £3 a week for loss. Judgment would be for plaintiffs for £2B 13s lOd, with court costs (£3 Is), witnesses’ expenses (£7 17s), solicitor's fee (£4 3s), a total of £43 14s lOd.