A COMPLETE ENGINE

Southland Times, Issue 17003, 29 March 1912, Page 3

A COMPLETE ENGINE

WHAT IS IT? A peculiar case was argued at Court yesterday, arising out of the sale of an oil engine over three years ago. James Macalister and Co., Ltd., sued James Welsh (Winton) for the balance of account on the sale. Mr Horace Macalister, who appeared for plaintiffs, said that his clients claimed £3 16s 6d. Towards the end of 1908, defendant, who was a farmer, had been in plaintiff's yard and had seen an oil engine partly erected. He told plaintiffs he thought the engine would suit him and asked the price. On being told it was £4 0, he agreed to take the engine and paid that amount. Plaintiffs told him that a circulating tank would also bo required with fittings, and he agreed to take that also. When the account was sent to him later on, ho questioned the reasonableness of the amount charged for this tank and also for the oil required. Counsel read voluminous correspondence between the parties: but apparently it had not led to any change in Welsh’s opinion, even though to effect a settlement plaintiffs had offered to. take £1 off. Counsel submitted that defendant had no reasonable defence, but was doing anything to get out of payment. James Macalister, of the plaintiff firm, gave evidence on the lines of counsel's statement. The engines were Imported without these tank fittings which were always changed for extra. It was one of the cheapest jobs his firm had ever supplied. When he agreed to take the £l, he understood that Welsh was coming in a day or two to settle. Defendant cross-examined the witness as to what was a complete engine and asked numerous questions that did not seem to bear much on the main Issue. Witness said that a charge was always made for putting these engines down. It could not be Included in the price of the engine, as some engines were more difficult to put down than others, owing to difficulties In the places in which they had to be put down.

Defendant described the purchase of the engine from hfi point of view. When lie bought and paid for the engine. he said, he thought a complete engine would bo provided, and then he discovered that the engine would not work without extra tank fittings. Besides, he thought these fittings were being excessively charged for. When a tank had been mentioned by plaintiffs he thought an ordinary tank for hold-

Ing water was meant. He knew better now, and reckoned that the tank he had bought should have been included in the complete engine. ' The Magistrate said he thought defendant was getting off lightly in having £1 knocked off. He knew he was getting a tank and extra fittings, and that he must pay a reasonable price for them. There was no doubt that defendant must pay. Accordingly judgment. would be given for plaintiffs for £3 16s 6d, the full amount claimed, with £1 12s costs, less 13s 4d allow’ed defendant for adjournment.