OIL COMPANY SUED

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 17, 14 October 1933, Page 2

OIL COMPANY SUED

Short Measure Alleged

DEALER’S CHARGES

Dominion Special Service. Palmerston North, October 13.

Alleging that the measuring-sticks supplied to him by the company were falsely and wrongly calibrated, James Henrv Bodie, service station proprietor, of Palmerston North, claimed £lO4/12/6 from the Vacuum Oil Company Proprietary Limited iu the Magistrate's Court to-day before Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M. In his statement of claim plaintiff alleged that the measuring-sticks did not measure correctly the amount of petrol which bad been supplied to him bv the company. From September 1, 1929. to May 5. 1932, he paid 1/10 a gallon for 45,000 gallons of petrol which he had secured from the company. whereas the actual amount which he bad been supplied with was 44.000 gallons. Plaintiff claimed £B2/10/- for ■ the amount lie had overpaid. £l2/2/6 interest on this amount and £lO as the cost of having two measuring-sticks recalibrated. Plaintiff stated that the company bad bad two pumps in his petrol station and the measuring sticks supplied for both of the tanks were incorrect.

Counsel for the defendant company said the claim was based on fraud, and he was inclined to ask for a nonsuit. but as the allegations were of a serious nature be would call evidence in the interest of the defendant company.

Evidence was given by Mr. W. 11. Cadwallader. Inspector of 1 Weights, ami Measures. that it was impossible to t get a 100 pen cent, correct reading j

with a calibrated measuring-stick. Evidence was also given that the subsidence of the ground and earth pressure could alter the shape of a tank and thus alter the reading of the stick. The magistrate said that if the company could produce records showing the amounts the wagon had taken out of the depot, the deliveries to customers including plaintiff, and the aniount returned to the depot, it could be ascertained if there was a surplus. Counsel for defendants said the records were, on file only back to May of this year. He believed the records ha<l been sent to Melbourne, and he would endeavour to have them produced if they were vital to the case. The magistrate said they were vital, as Ce bad nothing definite before him to determine if plaintiff was receiving short measure. In not taking proceedings earlier plaintiff had made it impossible to have .certain evidence placed before the court. He would reserve his decision in the meantime.