A QUARTZ CRUSHING DISPUTE.

Otago Witness, Issue 1891, 1 May 1890, Page 12

A QUARTZ CRUSHING DISPUTE.

(Dunedin R M. Oottrt, April 28 J 'Charles M'Queen v. WHiiam Shalmonline and 15. •'Suttou.— Claim £8 16b 4d, for nee of a crushing battery.— Mr W. D. Stewart appeared for plaiati£ ; Mr Batbgate for defendant Bhelmerdine, find Mr Solomon for defendant Button.— Mr Sfcjwart stated th»t the facts of the case were th*fe In January 1887 defendants, with two others, asked plaintiff to crmh certain quartz for them. wont was done, and appUcatton was thea made for payment for the use of the crushing machine. Sutton had only lately been applied Co for paymenb. Shelmerdluo hid dtabed that there were a number of persons interested in the crushing, and that he would pay a moiety. Plaintiff wanted the full amount, and being tina'ble to get Ib he was now forced to sue. He tfndewtraod Sutton would diapute the amount because he was nob a partner.— Mr Solomon : That is bo.— Mi Stewart continued that, at any irate, Sutton took an interest in the craihing. He proceeded to call witnesses—Gharles Hallam {storeman in MessVs Kincaid, M'Queen, and Oo.'s employ in 188? ), Johu H. M'Laren (foreman engineer)," Charles M'Queen (plaintiff), and A. J. Burnß (manager) gave evidence. 2,' he latter stated that when he g ive the account to Sutton he objected to pay on the ground that some quicksilver had beep, lost at the time of the crushing. — This closed plaintiff's cisc, - Mr Solomon applied lor a uensuib on beiuif of his client, urglni? thab thcra was no case against him.— Mr Stewart objected, pointing out that Sntton •had actually admitted that he was interested in tM> •crushing.— Mr Solomon s W«a admit that now. -After discussion his Worship prnrted Mr Sol Orion's appliicabiou, and allowed half a guinea as costs.— Mr Bathgate then applied for a noinsuib on behalf of his client, on tho ground that no contract had been proved. The case all thrcti'gh was a very vague one. Mis Worship did not Beo his wny dear to grant Mr Bathgate's request.— Mr Bathgate then went on to say thab he looked on bhe case as one that Oould nob be upheld. He understood that tho position wtfs that at the time of the urushiug the wotk had boett done so badly that it had been decided not to Charge anything for it. bub when Mr Burns was nppjinted liquidator in the company's estate the matter was again taken up.— Cournd Besant waa called for the defenco, and bfcated that the crushing was entirely worthJcsß. One of the tipples of tho machine had decayed, the consequence being thab übout 30,b of quicksilver had been lost. The cnishiug having turned out po badly almost spoiled the prospects of the claim from which tile quartz was takeu, and witneas believed he l<»it £1000 through it —John H. M'Laren, recalled, Btated thab bhero never was any complaint made as bo the loss of quicksilver, and even if it had been lost he did mfc see that it could have been picked up a 1 was stated by the last witness, a» it would have made its wav into an old drain, from which ib could not be recovered. There was no part of the machine that was defective. There were Baye-alis "on the machine, but Ho ripples.— On resuming after tho adjournment, John rfhelmerdiue was called. He said ire considered the charge excessive, but was willing to pay £.3 or so The machine d j d I n f' work well — Hts Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £s«md Costs, £1 17s 6d.