Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

22 articles on this Page

[No title]


Monday—Before His Honour Judge Hill-Kelly. I Dispute About a Gas Engine. I R. A. Wheeler, general engineer, of Cardiff, sued Henrv Lewis and Sons, timber merchants, of Usk, for £65 for an 18-h.p. suction gas engine and plant supplied, and £ 4s. for inspections of boilers on behalf of defendant. Defendant counter-claimed the sum of £ 25 damages which he alleged he sustained by loss of business on account of plaintiff not erecting the plant. Mr. 1 Ingledew, of Ingledew & Sons, Cardiff, repre- sented the plaintiff, and Mr. St. John Francis I Williams represented the defendant. Mr. Ingledew, in outlining the case, said that when defendant was asked for payment he replied that he made it a hard and fast rule not to pay for anything until it was erected and in working order.' Some amusement was caused in regard to defendant's handwriting on several postcards. Plaintiff's and defendant's legal representatives in getting copies typed of the correspondence had come across a word which neither of them could make out, and which both agreed to leave blank. Plaintiff's solicitor had put in one word as exCitor" which turned out to be erected, and had further referred to a versatile foundation. Mr. St. John Francis Williams said this should be concrete," but it was as much like versa- tile as concrete." His Honour (looking at the letter which had neenhanded to him) Rather less. Plaintiff, in evidence, said that on defendant's instructions he inspected three boilers-two at Messrs. Bakers & Co., Cardiff, and one at the Heath Brickworks, just outside Cardiff. The usual fee for inspecting was two guineas. Wit- ness showed defendant a gas engine and plant lie had at Cardiff. He could not, however, recommend the engine, but said he had one of Fielding & Piatt's engines which he could -guarantee for 12 months. He showed defendant a letter from Fielding & Platt showing that he had to pay f40 for the engine, and offered to deliver the engine and plant at Usk station for £ 65. He never undertook to fix it, as the price he quoted would not permit of that, He had it erected at his works to show defendant that it was in good working order, and the erection cost him several pounds. Mr. St. John Francis Williams put in a specification of a gas engine, including pipes, water tanks, exhaust chamber, pulley, etc., which defendant offered to supply for £ 65, and plaintiff admitted that this was the same engine that defendant sold to him, though he did not supply him with the other items. His Honour Why should not defendant have the tanks, exhaust chamber, pipes, etc. ?— Because I made a different offer to h m. He had some of the things at his works. Why should he have less for his £ 65 than anyone else ?—Because I had to pay carriage and erect it at my own works to show him that it was in good order. Did vou tell him that he would not have the xhaust box, pulley, or tanks < No. Edward Lawrence, manager for plaintiff, said defendant was told it was to be a cash trans- action. On one occasion when asked to pay he said that money was hard to get, and on another occasion that if he got a certain cheque he would pay the account. His Honour, after examining the correspon- dence, remarked that they were about the worst-worded documents he had ever had to deal with. Defendant said he agreed to make the concrete foundation and find all the unskilled labour, and plaintiff was to provide all the engineering work. He did not know enough about engines to erect them. But for the promise to erect the engine he would not have bought it. Witness was to let plaintiff know when the foundation was ready so that lie could come to erect the engine. Plaintiff brought his son up and said the latter was going to erect the engine. The pulley, water tanks, pipes and exhaust chamber were included in the contract, but were not supplied. In consequence of the engine not being erected and running, he had lost about £ 25 through not being able to execute orders. If the engine had been running he could make about £3 or £ 4 a week profit. He asked two engineers to erect the engine, but there was an engineering trade dispute on, and they dared not touch it. The engine was still in his yard, and he had not had it erected vet. Mr. St. John Francis Williams What are you going to do about getting the engine erected? -Nothing; I can't. His Honour That is nonsense. His Honour remarked to Mr. St. John Francis Williams Your claim is rather nebulous. William Williams, manager for Messrs. Davies and Co., engineers, of Abergavenny, said a guinea was a sufficient charge for inspection of boilers in addition to travelling expenses. He estimated that the missing parts would cost about t14 new and that it would probably cost 1,10 to erect the engine and plant. After a hearing lasting about two and a half hours, His Honour gave judgment. He said that there was a considerable conflict of evidence, as was usually the case where people did not take the trouble to make themselves understood clearly. He had rarely seen correspondence less intelligible than the correspondence in this case. He gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed less £ 10 for the parts which had I not been supplied. With regard to the counter- claim, he considered that it was part of the contract that plaintiff should supply the en- bgineerii, work, and defendant was, therefore, entitled to some damages for breach of contract, and he awarded h m £10. He allowed costs on I' both the claim and the counter-claim. ————

Overcrowding at Uanelly Hill.

•w 1 Mozerah Presbyterian…



I Crickhowell Board of Guardians.…

Funeral of the Late Mr. Edwin…




Crickhowell Licensing Sessions.

Crickhowell Farmers' Union.






I-.Maindiff Court -Hospital.I…

ip A Successful Recruiting…


Sir Chas. Lucas on "The War…