MOTOR CAR TRANSACTION.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14522, 26 November 1912, Page 2

MOTOR CAR TRANSACTION.

HAWKES, LTD. v. DR. THACKER. Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., at tho Magistrate's Court yesterday, Hawkes, Ltd. (Mr Alpers) claimed £152 13s 3d from Dr. H. T. J. Thacker, alleging it to be the balance for goods supplied and work done from November, IJJIO. to June, 1912, including the hiring of motoT-cars for various periods, the longest of which was thirteen week.. Dr. Thacker (Mr Johnston) counto.claimed for £72, damages alleged to have been sustained through the plaintiffs not supplying a 16-20 Sunbeam motor-car in accordance with spec.fications. Leonard Treleaven, accountant for Hawkes and Co., said that on December 14th, election day, three cars had gono out On December 23rd a car ■had been hired for Kaituna. On January 3rd thero had been another for Okain's Bay. Another car had been out to Dr. Thacker's order tor thirteen'weeks at £o per week. I Stanley Dugarde, manager of Hawkes. Ltd., said that there had been no special contract that the defendant .hould have the use of a car free until a car he had' ordered should arrive. Di. Thacker, in answer to Mr Alpers, said he had the car at intervals from November to April. When Hawkes's wanted the car they sent for it and got it. He had not had it fairly consecutively irom 13th January to April. He had stored it, and on tho arrival of his own car, he had had .to ask them to take it away. About a week after April 10th, when his car arrived, he sent it back. For the most part ho had been using his smaller car. For tho ono in question ho had provided tyres, petrol and oil, and when they hud taken it away they had used these. Also, special repairs had been g:ven bj his own chauffeur, who had been paid by him. Mr Johnston applied for a non-suit, as no evidence in support of the claim for hiring had been brought. His Worship said ho would prefer to take the case as a whole. Tlioie was no prima fao:o case as to tile items for hiring. Mr Johnston said that being so he would proceed on the counter-riaim. Di. Thacker said that early last year he had three care, an Ariel, an Argyle, and a Renault. Mr Hawkes said' he might uiake arrangements for the taking of one of the second-hand cars in exchange. About July his big car was destroyed, and shortly afterwards Mr Hawkes came again, and said he had ordered for himself the latest typo of Sunbeam, and if Dr. Thacker would take it he would havo details altered. Witness said he would take it in October or lato in November, subject to certain extras being there and some, alterations made in Mr Hawkes's specification. When Mr Hawkes came to him with an estimate of thb cost, witness said he would give £400 and his old Renault for it. Mr Hawkes was to be allowed to show the car to prospective customers. Also, it was to be capable of certain feats on tho hills. His driver was especially skilful. About the first two weeks in November he had a chairce to 6ell his Argyle. He told Hawkes, who said he would not sco him stuck tor a car. This went on, but there was no sign of tho Sunbeam car. He was unable to get information until about March loth of this year, when ho heard it was on the Remuera. When the oar was unpacked, it was tound that it had none of the special features he had asked for, but was purely in accordanco with Mr Hawkes's specification. He denied absolutely that on election day he had either ordered, hired, or authorised the hiring of any car. He had never believed that ho was hiring. the car used on the other occasions named. It had been lent pending arrival of the car on order to him. - A John Brnnfcon, driver for Dr. lhacKcr, also gave evidence. Mr Alpers called. Mr J. S. Hawkes, ivho admitted the difference as to the accessories as specified by defendant Find as delivered, but said that Dr. rhacker had mentioned that the colour tvas not what ho had ordered, but had not made a great objection, and had not asked for any financial compensation for that. He had not given any absolute date for delivery, but had stated a probable time. . There had seen no arrangement between them as ;o hiring, but witness had arranged tho supply of cars when possible. He had ' not intended to make more than a loroinal charge. The charges set out n the statement of claim were much jelow tho ordinary fees. Ho had in ■ jther similar cases supplied cars at a : lominal fee. Wear and tear was a. i ;onsiderable *- item. He had been i mxious to get the car Dr. Thacker iad now on the road. j Judgment was given for plaintiffs | m the main claim for £69 2s" 3d, and j or the defendant on the counter-claim i or £49 10s.