CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

Otago Witness, Issue 2902, 27 October 1909, Page 61

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

WILKIE AND CO. v. NATIONAL ELECTRIC AXD ENGINEERING COMPANY. PLAINTIFFS NONSUITED. On the 21st inst. Mr .7. R. Bjrtholomew, S.M., deli\ered his iv«ei - \T-d judgment in the ca_«3 Wilkio and Oj. v. Narional Kloctrie auirl Enjrinef ring- Compuny, which was hcaid at the Maa-istrateV Court on September 21 —Mr H. D. Bedford appoaird for plaintiff*, and Mr W. C Macdi.-aror for dof-e'ic'ant'-Hi« Worship's judjsim'iit containod the fo'lowin-f : — The statement of claim -«t forth t'i;it in the month of. No\*»ni_b^r. ISOB, fV dpf^ndanf cprrcsd to sell an<i < 1 -t, ;i'irl th^ liLiiritiffs asre^<l to pm-chi^ fnr the -urn of £305 lls, an olcotiic plant oriM-luiij of one 50 her c e-pcM\ ! Pr moto 1 -, wh oil m-u-httfri T.ran s forii" l * i rs for /lrivin^ 1 h" n^achinory cf the plaintiffs' flouni'ill at Movjifl. Tlip ])laintiffs paid to the defcrulr.nt tlio of £305 lls. A1 the timo of n'akirs,' tho-■-aid iijrropiiiont tho pl.nniifi*. irace known to iho •clefondant tho pirt'oular purpo=" fo>i.hu'n thp pLiiif n,is lot-ui ?hk! relied ci defendant 1 -, skill ard |i!'!n-nx-nt that fl ■ c a!d plpnt \va> roa-ciali'v fir for mci irarP1"P 1 " =" Iho do 'end*, nr \\..rn.nrc v l that tli-° N.i id f ri-iiNtorm-Po would "ot >^qn'ie a:iv ["Vniion foi 12 month, yfi. 1 0 ration, and asriervl to iv pair ab-oljt^-ly at its <y.\n co-t any berakdov. n in tie frasi-foiinevs whirh ocurrcd in tlio six moi.lhs i'limediatelv sur-ceedinjf th-sii' ejection. On January 13. 1909, the plant was in<-talkd, ami on May I*, 1809, the tran-f.orn-.oi-s burnt out, thr>'-n-by stopping fcho opc-vatii^ns of tho pl.iint irTs' flourmill. ImmediaTely upon thi'« coounintr, the plairtiffs requested tho defendant to repair the damage done, but this the defendant refus3d to do. It was claimed by plaintiffs that the burning out of tlv transformer^ was due to defective manufacture and installation, and that, in consequence of the burn out, the mill vra? shut down on May 15, 16, a.n<l 17, while temporal v transformers wore being' put in. The mill ran for a period of nino weeks with tho temporary transformers, and in order that

this might be done it had been necessary , to engage an extra man. On July 17 the j mill was again shut down, an-d permanent j transformers were installed. The plaintiffs claimed £193 as damages, the sum being made up as follows: — Lees on transformers, j £145 ; four days' stoppage of the mill at \ £7 a day, £28; wages paid extra workman for nine weeks, at £2 a week, £18; cost _ of installing temporary and permanent new , transformers, £7. j On the expert evidence I must hold j that the plaintiffs have not proved that ' there was any defect in the installation J of t&e plant. As to whether there >ras | any defect in the manufacture of the plant j the evidence for the defence seems equally j positive. First, the transformers were ' thoroughly tested by the corporation before erection, and they worked perfectly for four months ; if there had been any flaw in them it should have developed earlier. Again, the coil of No. 1 transformer was closely examined after the burn out. when, if thore had been any manufacturing- fault, uodules would have shown in the wire. ( The most feasible theory seems that a temporary overload caused the fuss of !No. 1 transformer to blow, thereby cutting off the current from No. 1, and throwing an etxra load on the other two transformers, ' and this must hare continued for some time, causing a gradual roasting. The quantity of oil in the ti'aJisforniera could not have evaporated in a short time with-. 1 out causing a fire and a quantity of tmoko which must havtj been apparent. j Ifc is plain 1 from Mr Staa-k's evidence, that the transformers should have been regularly inspected, and Mr AclaiwJ ad i nuts that he knew plaintiffs were relying j entirely upon him, and that he did not tell them to inspect them ; in fact, the ' plaintiffs state he told them the trans- j formers would 'require no attention. It :3: 3 possible that if ths transformers had bee'i ; regularly inspected tho damage would not '. ha^e occurred. This, however, does not ' come within the guarantee, which is only • against defective manufacture and installation. ar\l as such had not been established, plaintiffs must be nonsuited, with costs (£lO 17s). j