Ca., La., 'Ts. 1,668.80 for work dono; and the latter Company counterclaim against the former, 'Cis, 1,200 damage for negligence. 'The plaintiff' claim is admitted by the defendants; and the only question I have to decide is, are the plaintiffs liable in damages for uegligif s0, in what amount The was for the erection condensing plant in the defendants' mill, Mr Blechynden, the plaintiff Company's manager, had been called in by the defendant Company on several ccersions during the preceding' year in regard to the engine room mac the mill. On the 13th of Septem he wrote'a letter 10 the defendant Company, beginning: "Regarding the proposed now condensing plant at the above mill we suggest as follows." He goes on to specify what should be done, and at what price he would do it, and' he anys the now work will take " four to six days to couple up." After a conversation of the 16th betwoon. Mr. Blechynden and the agent for the Mill Company when the former, as he swears, referred to the 4" intake pipe as ly_ of insufficient size and advised a 5" pipe Proposal the agent rejected on the score of expense—tho agent on the 17th of September telephoned to Mr. Blechynden that he accepted his offer of the 14th inst. To sneeeed on their counterclaim the defendant Company must prove negligence on the part of the plaintiff Company with damage directly resulting, therefrom to themselves, First, in regard there is no evidence of want of preparation on the part of the plaintif' Company to accomplish their.work in duo time. I find one act of negligence only that must be attributed to them—the fact that a loose nut got sotachow into the cylinder of their new pump and smashed it. Did this negligent act cause any loss to the defendant Company? The evidence shows that the work of coupling up the new pump began on the Tot of January when the mill was shut down for it- hi-annual overhaul, which their own manager said took generally ton to twelve days, On the 8th all was coupled up; tested on the 9th, then ready for trial. On' the-9th they could have worked, bat on the 10th boilers were not ready the bullers were undergoing necessary repairs at the lauds of the plaintiff Compeuy, irrespective of this contraer, The defendant Company's manager says: " So far as new pump and piping were concerned. nothing to prevent working on the 10th—one boiler was not finished." On the 13th for the first time the other chinery of the mill engine house was such a condition as to admit of a loaded
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.