DAMAGES CLAIMED BY CITY BUTCHER.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 64, 17 March 1931, Page 8

DAMAGES CLAIMED BY CITY BUTCHER.

QUALITY OF WORK ON COOLER IN DISPUTE

The hearing of a claim brought by Frederick Webb, of 698, Armagh Street, butcher (Mr M. J. Gresson) against J, J. Niven and Co., Ltd. (Mr Sim) for £175 damages, the cost of putting right a meat cooler, which went wrong last year because of faulty workmanship on the part of the defendant when reconditioning it in 1928, was continued before Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court to-day. Edward Batelle Harris (Mr M. J. Burns) was joined as a third party on the ground that the contract was sub-let to him by Niven and Co., and the company claimed that it was entitled to be indemnified by Harris for any damages which might be found due by it to the plaintiff. Opening the defence, Mr Sim said that the inquiry was a scientific one. Certain defects were alleged, and his Honor was asked to find the causes cf them. Experience had shown that pumice coolers were liable to fail for no assignable reason. It seemed that the construction of coolers was still in the experimental stage. Experts were puzzled to find the cause of some coolers going wrong, and counsel submitted that this might be just another such case, and it might be impossible to find the reason for its failure. Mr Sim dealt in turn with the several allegations of bad workmanship in the statement of claim, all of which, he said, would be met by expert evidence to the contrary. The observations and conclusions outlined by Mulholland jn his evidence, too, would be contradicted by Harris and his men and also by independent experts. Evidence would be called to show that the defects which were found in the cooler last year were already in evidence when Harris came on the scene in 1928, and that Webb'"would not agree to radical alterations, including the use of cork in place of pumice, as suggested b) r Niven and Co. Mr Sim also pointed out that throughout the period from September, 1928, to August, 1930, the plaintiff alleged that the cooler was not giving satisfaction, but no complaint was made to Niven and Co., and the question would arise whether the plaintiff had not been negligent in failing to notify Niven and Co., and. so giving them an opportunity to put the defects right. Counsel dealt in detail with the other allegations made in the statement of claim and in Mulholland’s evidence. Evidence dealing in detail with his work on the cooler in 1928 was given by Harris. He said that in his twenty years’ experience he had constructed twenty-two coolers of various kinds and repaired a number of others. Witness described how he dried some of the pumice used and replaced certain parts of the woodwork which had rotted. He contended that ground pumice was just as good as insulating pumice provided it was properly dry. (Proceeding.)