Dispute as to a Thrashing Machine at Conisborough

December 1895

Mexborough and Swinton Times December 13, 1895

Dispute as to a Thrashing Machine at Conisborough

Andrew Burniston, traction engine owner, sued Samuel Whitefield, of Conisborough, for £12 for use of a thrashing machine.

The plaintiff stated that the machine was used for 24 days at the rate of £12 which was 10 shillings per diem.

Mr Whitefield came to see him first in January about it. He did not say how long he wanted it. When he told the defendant the price he said “all right.” He subsequently asked the defendant to send the machine home, as he had customers waiting for it. The defendant said it was a pity to take the machine away, as he would be wanting it in three or four days, and therefore, he allowed it to remain.

Mr Baddiley (for the defence): Have you executed an assignment for the benefit of your creditors? Yes.

When? I don’t know the date.

Is the assignment still outstanding? Yes

Was this machine included in the assignment? Not then. It was not included because it did not belong to me. I had not paid for it.

The Judge, interposing: One action should not be the means of getting information for another.

Mr Parkes (for the plaintiff) agreed with this.

Mr Baddiley, continuing: You have charged for Sunday’s. You don’t expect the machine to be worked on Sundays? No.

Is not the practice to only charge when the machine is working? No.

The plaintiff added that his wife had been carrying on the business as he was away in Leicester.

The Defendant said that the plaintiff’s wife sent to him for money, saying that her husband had gone away and left a non-, and he sent her £3 for the use of the machine, which was all the payment that was due.

After further examination, His Honour give judgement for that amount.