Mr. Wright said he was not prepared to go on.
His Lordship asked Mr. Wright if ho wanted pleadings. If there were to be pleadings plaintiffs would have to have: further particulars, If not plaintiff could have an adjournment, if necessary, to call their witnesses. The question was whether they. should go on with the summons.or aliother psiatife denied pleadings.
Mr. Wright asked for pleadings.
Mr. Wilkinson argued that this: was a claim for a defendants, here was a counter-claim for jatod amount, admitted by
aunt, and in accordance with provisional rules he bad given full details of the facts upon whioh he intended to rel} His Lordship said that really, 80 far as ho could seo the matter could be reduced to this. There was a claim made, and counter-claim, and ho did' not ace-why the ease should not go°on, The defendants made " counter-claim for the: reason that the work had been done negligently: Thxt particular issue could: be: tried.
Mr. Wright asked whut work Mr. Willineon said it was. the work. described in certain letters, 'The repairs and alterations: meant the ordinary fitting. up. of the machinery alluded to, which was: supposed to increase the: power of the mill, His' Lordship said he was perfectly ready to go on. If daring: thovhoaring of the case it was shown that' Mr. Wright' was at a disadvantage' ho would allow' adjournment. ssid thet the China Flour Mill' was Mr. Wilkinson, la opening bit case, successful company carrying on business here. In the ordinary course the mill was at work every day. Before the 18th of September 1904 the plaintiffs had effected certain ropaire and alterations at the mill, A suggestion wi then made that the power. of the mi might Bo'inoreased: After various inter-jews there was a tender' by the tiffs, They called it an estimat dants called ita tender, as it" mentioned fic work and the price at which the plaintiffs were prepared to carry it out. On being accepted that formed the con tract. between. the partic (Read the: tender). The plaintiff! pric for the. installation of the. new. machinery, complete was Tls. 1,950, 'The work: was undertaken,.and every facility was afforded plaintiffs to carry it out. The installation: was tried, but was not: a: success; and: the- mill' was stopped: for eight days longer than it should have been, Defendants in their counterclaim' reduced this period to four days. Three main reasons were given by plaintiffs
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.