CRAWFORD V. GIBSON.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3374, 18 December 1871, Page 2

CRAWFORD V. GIBSON.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE INDEPENDENT. Sib,— l wish to correct some mißsrateraents and to make fi few remarks on a letter which appenrod in the " Evening Post" of Friday lash, signed " Justice." Had the evidence of Mr Petford been fully given in t,he published reports of the proceedings, this would probably have been unnecessary. Mr Petford states on oath that when the machine was sent to him to be cleaned up, some nino or ten months ago, and before delivery to Mr Crawford, he brought it back to Gibson and showed him that it was defective, and tod him that it could not be repuired in the colony. Notwithstanding this report, Mr Gibson delivers the machine without comment. Mr Crawford only became cognisant of this fact a fow week 9 ago, when in despuir he sent the machine to Petford to be examined. It is true that Mr Kebbell states the muohine to bo perfeot, and he is " heavy metal" us against Mr Petford ; but as the machine appears always to have behaved as Petford said it must do, thore is reasonable ground for the supposition; that Mr Rebbell may be mistaken. Mr Petford stated that the fhaft was loose, and that although the machine raight be put in order so as to work for a few minutes, or even for half an hour, it was sure to go wrong, to fail to make the stitches, and to wake a confused moss of the threads. As this was precisely what appears to have been the usuul behaviour of the machine, Mr Pot-ford's evidence has the advantage of proved faots over that of Mr Kebbell. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, Mr Petford had before Thursday last left for England in the Hulcione, and consequently could not be called upon to explain the particular defect by reference to the machine. Whether the machine was a good one or not it would appenr to bo a strange proeeedingof arespeotable tradesman todeliver an article as sound to the purchaser, after it hnd been reported to him as radically defec» tive by the person whom he had employed to put it in order, without stating that it had been so reported. It ia not likelj that Mr Crawford, or anyone else, after becoming acquainted with this fact, would, oven after the lapse of nearly twelve months, calmly submit to put up with the services of a machine which would do no work, for even Mr Kebbell never pretended to have worked it for more than a few minutes at a time. The above disposes of the main principles of the case. There are some misrepresentations which it may bo as well to notice- Miss Luxfard, who was called in as an expert, appears to hare tried the machine, not once only, but on severa occasions, and not when the strap was misplaced. Again, it is stated by " Justice" that the machine wae sent by Gibson to Petford to be put to rights, after delivery to Mr Crawford, whereus the evidence shows that it went to Petford before delivery, was reported by him to Gibson as defective, and notwithstanding was delivered as sound. — I am, &c, Retribution. The fact must also be borne in mind that in July Mr Gibson was requested to dispose of the machine, even at a loss ; also that between December, 1870, and that time tlie machine had been for a great part of the time in his hands returned as useless. In fairness to the J.P. who decided the case, and for the public information, I think it desirable thut this auswor to " Justice" of the " Post" ehou.d be published. [It is contrary to the usual practice to insert in one newspaper replies to letters which appear in another journal in the same town, and we desire correspondents to understand that for the future they must address replios to letters that Lave been published in our evening contemporary to tha* journal. — Ed.]