Jenner and Davey's Foundry

History

Steam Engines! STEAM ENGINES!
‘TO MINING COMPANIES AND OTHERS. THE Undersigned offers for sale the following machinery, all quite new, and adapted expressly for mining purposes: - … C. J. JENNER, Armstrong street, Ballarat. Orders by post punctually attended to.‘

COUNTY COURT.

‘Monday, 17th June. (Before his Honor Judge Rogers.) … Dobson v Jenner and others. – Mr Harris for plaintiff, Mr Wright for defendants. Action for £158, damages sustained from breach of contract to deliver a stripping machine to plaintiff in good order and condition. Defendants were the well known ironfounders, in Armstrong street. Henry Dobson, farmer at Burrumbeet, plaintiff, deposed that he bought a stripping machine from defendants, for £97, (The sale note was read,) Took the machine out to Burrumbeet, and when it was taken into the paddock it would not word. It only pulled up the corn by the roots. Tried nearly the whole day. This was eight or nine days after taking out the machine. Left the machine there, and afterwards told Mr Davey the machine was no use. One of defendants’ men went round to the Ballarat foundry, where a man was called out, and an appointment made by defendants’ clerk for him to go out to see the machine. A few days after the man went out, and he could not get the machine to work, as it only pulled up the corn by the roots. The man said he could make some improvements to it, but it was too late in the season. After three or four hours’ trial, plaintiff told the man the machine should be sent back to defendants. That was done, but defendants refused to take it in, and no terms were come to in the matter. He put the machine in the Market Square, and gave defendants notice that it lay there at their risk, he having lost £150 by it. Eventually he had it sold by Mr Oddie for about £20 at auction. At this point the witness was about to be examined on the consequential damages, but an objection was raised by Mr Wright, and the witness was ordered to leave the court, pending the argument. Counsel cited authorities to show that no damages could be recovered but those agreed to be borne, or the amount of the difference between the cost of the article supplied and a really good one. His Honor was disposed to concur, but would take the evidence de bene esse. Plaintiff, recalled, deposed that if the machine had been good the 100 acres would have been gathered in about a fortnight, but the difference in cost, as he had to cut the crop by hand labor, was over £100. Cross-examined – Everybody in Ballarat knows I am a farmer as well as a publican. I did not come to Ballarat to buy and Adelaide machine. I was twice at defendants’ about it. I have heard the Adelaide machines strip and thrash too, but that they will not work in wet weather. There was a little rain before we tried defendants’ machine, but when we used it the weather was dry and the corn too. I understood the machine was on the Adelaide principle. Don’t believe it went ten yards without being choked up. Would not like to contradict Mr Jenner on his oath. Re-examined – The weather was mostly fine when we tried the machine, and no crops could be finer than mine. James Oddie, auctioneer and agent, deposed that he sold the machine at Mr McDermott’s instructions. Sold the machine after three advertisements for £20. He was agent for the Adelaide machines, and his evidence might be open to exception, but he heard the farmers say – Mr Wright objected to what the farmers said. Witness cross-examined – The machine was disabled. I drew up the advertisement. It was correct to say it was “a new and superior machine.” I knew it was on the Adelaide principle, and heard it was of superior make. The season was considered a wet one generally. The season had passed when the sale took place. William Curley, plaintiff’s carter, deposed that the weather at the time in question was dry, and the crops magnificent, and that whether the machine went fast or slow, still the operation was essentially radical. The crop were torn up by the roots. This witness was not so well up in witness box proprieties as he appeared to be in farming matters, for he was sharply reprimanded by the judge for some remarks made in the box. Another witness corroborated the carter, and the plaintiff’s case closed with plaintiff’s recall to endorse the instructions for the sale of the machine. His Honor disallowed the consequential damages, and said the whole question was as to the right to sell, and the damages from difference of value of the machine. Mr Wright read some correspondence between the parties, showing that defendants repudiated all property in the machine when returned by the defendants, and argued that plaintiff having acted in opposition to his declaration, that the machine lay at defendants’ risk, could not now recover. His Honor said defendants’ repudiation affected the Plaintiff’s position, and entitled him to sell. Mr Wright urged that the sale was an act of absolute ownership. His Honor reserved the pint. Mr Wright in opening for the defence said that according to Liebig’s Agricultural Chemistry the action of the machine would be affected by the season, as a wet season altered certain chemical properties in the steam and so affected the working of the machine. John Adolphus Jenner, one of the defendants, deposed that when plaintiff came to inspect and buy the machine, he said he had looked at it before. Told plaintiff the price, and asked £100 or £110, and eventually plaintiff bought it for the price already deposed to. The machine was of the sort that would not work if the corn was not very dry, and the weather also dry. Plaintiff did not seem to understand why the machine did not work. The machine would require a man acquainted with the working, and the horses would require to be very steady. Cross-examined – After we sent out a man to inspect the machine plaintiff came in and said the machine pulled up the corn by the roots, and he wished some other goods in lieu of it. I do not recollect his saying it was of no use to him. Thomas Davey, one of the defendants, deposed that plaintiff said he did not understand, nor had he a man who understood the machine. Told plaintiff it was essential that somebody should understand the machine, and advised him to go to Mr Farrant, the maker, at the Ballarat Foundry, and ask him about the machine. Never had notice of the sale from plaintiff or Mr McDermott. The whole season was wet for this climate. Cross-examined – Knew a machine was to be sold by Mr Oddie, and believed this one was to be sold. I had a doubt, as plaintiff’s name did not appear. Dougall Carmichael said he hae been making and working those machines for 15 years He had made and worked them both in South Australia and Victoria. There was no patent in them. He had seen the machine in dispute, and the machine was in working order. He would not fear that he or any experimental man could make it go; but they were difficult to work, and the crop must be in a thoroughly good condition. The last season was the worst he had seen for the last 15 years. He had a first class machine of his own near Dobson’s, but he could not work it more than four or five days in the week, The machine in dispute had been a little injured in the comb, but a skilful person would have remedied that in a minute. But the crop must be quite ripe and the worker must have a thorough knowledge of the machine. Cross-examined – A day’s sun after a slight rain would do in Adelaide but not here. Examined the machine before it went out of Farrant’s yard. The machine is a perfect imitation of Miller’s Adelaide machines. Francis Clarke, a farmer at Coghill’s Creek, deposed that he had bought a similar machine from defendants, and it worked very well in dry weather, but when it was wet it would not work. Cross-examined – They work just as well as Miller’s. In fact I would as soon have mine as one of Miller’s. His Honor at this point suggested that there was no need of further evidence as the scientific evidence showed plaintiff did not understand the working of the machine. Allen, the man who was sent out to see the machine at plaintiff’s place, deposed that the machine stripped the corn clean but choked up, and he told plaintiff the crop was not in a suitable state. Plaintiff and his men said a more suitable crop would never be found, and they went on again, but “she” choked up quicker than before, and the horses went off at a trot. Plaintiff ordered the men to take the machine right off away to Ballarat, but witness offered to put the comb to rights and alter its thrashing action; but plaintiff refused and ordered off the machine to Ballarat. The machine was in perfect working order at the time if the crop had been right, and the only alterations he proposed in the machine were to adapt it to the state the crop was in. His Honor said it was evident the machinery had fallen into unskilful hands. Verdict for defendants, with £23 18s 4d costs.'

COUNTY COURT.

‘Monday, 17th June. (Before his Honor Judge Rogers.) … Dobson v Jenner and others. – Mr Harris for plaintiff, Mr Wright for defendants. Action for £158, damages sustained from breach of contract to deliver a stripping machine to plaintiff in good order and condition. Defendants were the well known ironfounders, in Armstrong street. Henry Dobson, farmer at Burrumbeet, plaintiff, deposed that he bought a stripping machine from defendants, for £97, (The sale note was read,) Took the machine out to Burrumbeet, and when it was taken into the paddock it would not word. It only pulled up the corn by the roots. Tried nearly the whole day. This was eight or nine days after taking out the machine. Left the machine there, and afterwards told Mr Davey the machine was no use. One of defendants’ men went round to the Ballarat foundry, where a man was called out, and an appointment made by defendants’ clerk for him to go out to see the machine. A few days after the man went out, and he could not get the machine to work, as it only pulled up the corn by the roots. The man said he could make some improvements to it, but it was too late in the season. After three or four hours’ trial, plaintiff told the man the machine should be sent back to defendants. That was done, but defendants refused to take it in, and no terms were come to in the matter. He put the machine in the Market Square, and gave defendants notice that it lay there at their risk, he having lost £150 by it. Eventually he had it sold by Mr Oddie for about £20 at auction. At this point the witness was about to be examined on the consequential damages, but an objection was raised by Mr Wright, and the witness was ordered to leave the court, pending the argument. Counsel cited authorities to show that no damages could be recovered but those agreed to be borne, or the amount of the difference between the cost of the article supplied and a really good one. His Honor was disposed to concur, but would take the evidence de bene esse. Plaintiff, recalled, deposed that if the machine had been good the 100 acres would have been gathered in about a fortnight, but the difference in cost, as he had to cut the crop by hand labor, was over £100. Cross-examined – Everybody in Ballarat knows I am a farmer as well as a publican. I did not come to Ballarat to buy and Adelaide machine. I was twice at defendants’ about it. I have heard the Adelaide machines strip and thrash too, but that they will not work in wet weather. There was a little rain before we tried defendants’ machine, but when we used it the weather was dry and the corn too. I understood the machine was on the Adelaide principle. Don’t believe it went ten yards without being choked up. Would not like to contradict Mr Jenner on his oath. Re-examined – The weather was mostly fine when we tried the machine, and no crops could be finer than mine. James Oddie, auctioneer and agent, deposed that he sold the machine at Mr McDermott’s instructions. Sold the machine after three advertisements for £20. He was agent for the Adelaide machines, and his evidence might be open to exception, but he heard the farmers say – Mr Wright objected to what the farmers said. Witness cross-examined – The machine was disabled. I drew up the advertisement. It was correct to say it was “a new and superior machine.” I knew it was on the Adelaide principle, and heard it was of superior make. The season was considered a wet one generally. The season had passed when the sale took place. William Curley, plaintiff’s carter, deposed that the weather at the time in question was dry, and the crops magnificent, and that whether the machine went fast or slow, still the operation was essentially radical. The crop were torn up by the roots. This witness was not so well up in witness box proprieties as he appeared to be in farming matters, for he was sharply reprimanded by the judge for some remarks made in the box. Another witness corroborated the carter, and the plaintiff’s case closed with plaintiff’s recall to endorse the instructions for the sale of the machine. His Honor disallowed the consequential damages, and said the whole question was as to the right to sell, and the damages from difference of value of the machine. Mr Wright read some correspondence between the parties, showing that defendants repudiated all property in the machine when returned by the defendants, and argued that plaintiff having acted in opposition to his declaration, that the machine lay at defendants’ risk, could not now recover. His Honor said defendants’ repudiation affected the Plaintiff’s position, and entitled him to sell. Mr Wright urged that the sale was an act of absolute ownership. His Honor reserved the pint. Mr Wright in opening for the defence said that according to Liebig’s Agricultural Chemistry the action of the machine would be affected by the season, as a wet season altered certain chemical properties in the steam and so affected the working of the machine. John Adolphus Jenner, one of the defendants, deposed that when plaintiff came to inspect and buy the machine, he said he had looked at it before. Told plaintiff the price, and asked £100 or £110, and eventually plaintiff bought it for the price already deposed to. The machine was of the sort that would not work if the corn was not very dry, and the weather also dry. Plaintiff did not seem to understand why the machine did not work. The machine would require a man acquainted with the working, and the horses would require to be very steady. Cross-examined – After we sent out a man to inspect the machine plaintiff came in and said the machine pulled up the corn by the roots, and he wished some other goods in lieu of it. I do not recollect his saying it was of no use to him. Thomas Davey, one of the defendants, deposed that plaintiff said he did not understand, nor had he a man who understood the machine. Told plaintiff it was essential that somebody should understand the machine, and advised him to go to Mr Farrant, the maker, at the Ballarat Foundry, and ask him about the machine. Never had notice of the sale from plaintiff or Mr McDermott. The whole season was wet for this climate. Cross-examined – Knew a machine was to be sold by Mr Oddie, and believed this one was to be sold. I had a doubt, as plaintiff’s name did not appear. Dougall Carmichael said he hae been making and working those machines for 15 years He had made and worked them both in South Australia and Victoria. There was no patent in them. He had seen the machine in dispute, and the machine was in working order. He would not fear that he or any experimental man could make it go; but they were difficult to work, and the crop must be in a thoroughly good condition. The last season was the worst he had seen for the last 15 years. He had a first class machine of his own near Dobson’s, but he could not work it more than four or five days in the week, The machine in dispute had been a little injured in the comb, but a skilful person would have remedied that in a minute. But the crop must be quite ripe and the worker must have a thorough knowledge of the machine. Cross-examined – A day’s sun after a slight rain would do in Adelaide but not here. Examined the machine before it went out of Farrant’s yard. The machine is a perfect imitation of Miller’s Adelaide machines. Francis Clarke, a farmer at Coghill’s Creek, deposed that he had bought a similar machine from defendants, and it worked very well in dry weather, but when it was wet it would not work. Cross-examined – They work just as well as Miller’s. In fact I would as soon have mine as one of Miller’s. His Honor at this point suggested that there was no need of further evidence as the scientific evidence showed plaintiff did not understand the working of the machine. Allen, the man who was sent out to see the machine at plaintiff’s place, deposed that the machine stripped the corn clean but choked up, and he told plaintiff the crop was not in a suitable state. Plaintiff and his men said a more suitable crop would never be found, and they went on again, but “she” choked up quicker than before, and the horses went off at a trot. Plaintiff ordered the men to take the machine right off away to Ballarat, but witness offered to put the comb to rights and alter its thrashing action; but plaintiff refused and ordered off the machine to Ballarat. The machine was in perfect working order at the time if the crop had been right, and the only alterations he proposed in the machine were to adapt it to the state the crop was in. His Honor said it was evident the machinery had fallen into unskilful hands. Verdict for defendants, with £23 18s 4d costs.’

DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP.

‘NOTICE is hereby given that the partnership hitherto subsisting between the undersigned John Adolphus Jenner and Thomas Davey, trading as “Jenner and Davey,” at Ballaarat, Smythesdale, and elsewhere, as iron merchants and importers of machinery, &c., is dissolved by effluxion of time. The business will in future be conducted by Thomas Davey alone. Dated this 13th day of March, A.D. 1862. JOHN A. JENNER, . THOMAS DAVEY. Witness - WILLIAM HIGGINS, Solicitor, Geelong. No. 495.’

External Links

---

--Beth Kicinski 19:07, 29 December 2012 (EST)