Nelson Chronicle, Colne Observer, and Clitheroe Division News. — 1902-11-07 (Nelson, Lancashire, England)

WHERE THE MONEY GOES. lift two tons of mod doesn't it moan that the groatost weight it is safe for it to lift is two ton.s?  Witness: No; we intended that there should only be five windings necessary to fill a ten ton waggon. There is a great deal of time lost while men go to the top, and work the cram and we wished to avoid' this. On February sth M. G. W. Rush; worth catne to test the crane. He looked at the way it was fixed and sad it would be all right. He asked what weight of mind a box contained,. and agreed that it did not hold more than one ton, lie then took off his coat and said he would wind the box up or he would eat it. He began to wind it up, and he had not got more than two feet six or so before he called for another man standing close to him to put on the brake. A weight of two torus, five crwts was put on it and four men lifted it a foot from the ground. Mr. Rushworth then seemed satisfied that the crane was a failure. He went, with witness into the office and asked; him what. sort of crane would suit. his purpose., He would not use a snatch block upon any. consideration; he would consider himself a murderer if he did. When a snatch block, was abed the box would twist round and it would be unsafe to the men underneath., Before they pulled the crane down they put a dead weight of eighty-three pounds on the. handles, and it was only sufficient to raise the weight a few inches. While haid the crane the average cost of raising, the zneerial was Is. 6d. per ton. Afterwards he had the Fend thrown up by stages, and the cost then increased to 28. 61d. per ton. They had since got another crane and the average cost with that was Is. per bon. During the time the crane in question had been at work 660 toms were raised. He had also had to employ extra men and in this way the counter claim was made up. _ _  The Judge stlllll7llll up at some length. It seemed to him, he said, that the case turned upon whether there was any implied guarantee under the Sale of Goods Act that this crane should habitually and continually lift two on to a height of 25 feet. He thought it was true that the defendant in hi a own mind intended to do the work more cheaply if he continuously lifted two tons at. a time, but he was not satisfied that he made that clear to Mr. Rushworth, and certain IT he had not got it into the letters. He had no doubt that there was an imOied contract that the crane should be abl, to lift nand but how much was another quer, tion. The case depended entirely upon the meaning of the words to lift two tone of sand in addition to the box containing the same." If the crane had broken down 'ander that weight it would have been able to 'lift 2i tons, but it was admitted tbat , could lift 21 tons. What was contended 11116 that it was not a crane which was suitable to constantly and habitually lift that ' weight. If this had been the contract he thought that the warranty would not have been fulfilled but on the whole he came to the conclusion that this was not the true, meaning of the letter. He hekd it to mean' that the crane should be capable of lifting that weight, and not constantly and habitually. The plaintiffs when they found that the crane was not heavy enough suggestal that it should be returned and that defendant should ehocee a heavier one, but defendant did not avail himeelf of that. He held that. the defendant was not entitled to reject the crane and therefore gare jtulg' men for the plaintiffs.