FARMERS IN COURT

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 41, 24 June 1929, Page 5

FARMERS IN COURT

OVER ENGINE SALE DRIVING OF MILKING MTCHINE. CLAIM TO RECOVER PART OF PURCHASE MONEY. Albert E. Wickham, Tanner, Tariki, proceeded at the Stratford Magistrate's Court this morning, before Mr. K. \V. Tate, S.M., against Ernest A. Grigg, farmer, Ratapiko, to recover £lO, in connection with an engine allegedly purchased and returned as . Mi. I. Thomson appeared for plaintiff and Mr. N. H. Moss for defendant.

Giving evidence, plaintiff said he purchased aj G-reenslade engine from defendamt, finally paying hun) the sum of £l6. Witness said he wanted an engine for a live-cow plant, and defendant said his engine would be just the thing for that work. On only two occasions could the engine he got to go. The original price agreed on was £2O, but this was reduced to £l6 because the tank was leaky. As soon as the load was put on the engine would not go and witness came to the conclusion that it was quite worn out. Witness offered to return the engine to Grigg on Grigg paying £lO. After thinking a while Grigg agreed and asked witness to deliver the engine to Phillip’s mart. The engine was, however, delivered dirtet to Grigg, as a result of a message from him. After the following 20th of the month witness wrote to 'Grigg asking if he had sent the cheque for the engine. Witness received no reply, hut at the Ratapiko Sports witness saw. Grigg, who offered the information that he intended to forward the cheque shortly. Later, witness saw Grigg and asked for the cheque. Grigg asked

for further time, but witness said he wanted a post-dated cheque or something else definite. Grigg promised to see what he could do in a few days, hut when witness got no word in a few days ho notified Grigg that he intended to sue. Mr Moss: When you buy a2i h-P----engine for £2O do you expect to get a tinst-class article? Witness; I expect to get something in accordance with a guarantee given. f I Continuing, in reply to MX Moss, witness said he usually ran his milking machine by water-power, and the engine was only an emergency provision. Grigg said the engine had just been over-hauled. 'Witness did not interfere with the timing on the engine. Since then witness ha another engine from a neighbour at £25. Herbert Staddon, previously employed by plaintiff, gave evidence ot the interview, with Grigg just before proceedings were started. To Mr. 'Moss: Witness did not alter the timing, except in company with young Grigg, who, later, suggested that the timing was

°piaintiff’s case was concluded by the giving of evidence by his W 1 e and daughter as to the terms of the conversation at the Ratapiko sports. Opening defendant’s case, Mr Moss contended that proceedings hardly in accordance with the sta ment of claim. The evidence given set up a new contract of sale hack to defendant, hut the evidence given did not contain anything which could he taken as proving such an agreement to purchase. The bench held that the engine had been delivered hack to defendant at the request, of his son, and the s on must he taken to be his father's agent in this respect, the Wickhams having seen him previously fixing up the engine on his father’s behalf. Giving evidence, defendant, said that when Wickham asked him to take back the engine, he suggested to Wickham that his best plan was to put it in the mart. Witness did J not say that it should go to the mart for sale on his (witness’) account. Ho did not instruct his boy to. ask that the engine he returned to witness’ farm. The first he knew about the matter was when his \sfe said •Wickham had returned the engine. Witness looked txpon the engine as still belonging to Wickham. At this stage, hearing was adjourned UR the afternoon.