ELECTRIC INSTALLATION.

Waikato Times, Volume 99, Issue 16545, 14 July 1925, Page 4

ELECTRIC INSTALLATION.

CLAIM AGAINST SAW-MILLER.

DENIAL OF ANY CONTRACT,

A claim for £9 17s Cd for electrical installation work was brought by Turnbull and Jones, electrical engineers, against Arthur Albert Smith, sawmiller, Otorohanga, at the Magistrate's Court, Hamilton, to-day. Defendant filed a counter-claim for £lB 10s damages allegedly due for the wrongful action of Turnbull and Jones in causing the workmen at his sawmill at Te Kawa to cease work in the said mill, whereby the defendant lost the profit on an output of 2,500 ft. of sawn timber.

Mr D. Seymour appeared Cor plaintiff company and 'Mr F. Phillips (Otorohanga) for defendanL In introducing plaintiffs' case Mr Seymour stated that it would be shown that his clients had been instructed to do the work by one Miers, who would state that defendant had asked him to make the Kiecessary arrangements with the plaintiffs. No question had ever been raised by defendant as to the quality of the work, nor had he ever attempted to repudiate plaintiffs' account until Court action was threatened. Frank Patrick Miers, foreman of the Te Awamutu Electric Power Board, Te Awamutu, deposed to defendant having asked him to make arrange-, ments with the plaintiff firm for the installation of electric light in whares at his (Smith's) mill. To Mr Phillips: The Power Board itself did no installation work. The' work was passed by the Board's inspector, although only bare wiring was used. Alfred Joshua Tailby, electrical inspector to the Te Awamutu Power Board, gave evidence as to the installation work'having been quite satisfactory under the temporary wiring conditions allowed in this particular case.

Joseph John Herrick, accountant to the plaintiff firm, -said that monthly statements were rendered defendant, who at no time repudiated liability or made any complaint as to the quality of the work until lie had received a letter from plaintiffs' solicitor. The case for the defence, was a general denial of responsibility. Defendant had not asked Miers to instruct Turnbull and Jones to do the work; in fact, Smith had actually quarrelled with plaintiff firm over a previous dealing, and it was not probable that he would desire further transactions with them.

Defendant stated in evidence that he was paying the minimum rate of £25 a month for power at his Te Kawa mill, despite the fact that he was using only about £lO or £l2 a month of current. Witness discussed the matter with Miers, who suggested that he (Smith) should wire up the workmen's cottages and thus give them the benefit of the power that was virtually going to waste. Witness replied that he did not want to go to any further expense in the matter, but Miers suggested that the men themselves could cut a few poles for the installation and the Power Board would put in the wiring. Instead of this, continued witness, plaintiff company, whom he had given no authority, came on the job and took several of the bushmen to do the work, thus seriously disorganising operations at the mill, with the result that defendant had lost about £lB 10s, which was the subject of the counter-claim.

Murray Piatt, defendant's bush foreman, gave evidence corroborating, in the main, the testimony of Smith. Judgment was for plaintiff company on both claim and counter-claim,- costs totalling £8 13s 4d in ah being awarded against Smith.