MIXED MOTORS

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 126, 28 May 1920, Page 2

MIXED MOTORS

CAKKIKft Ci.-AIMS DAMAGES

OViC« PUHCHAKK OF TRUCK

A claim for damages over the sals of a motor-truck was heard by his Honom* Sir John Salmor.d and a jury of four in the Supreme Court to-day. The pluh'tig' wks Thomas Kdwaid Mroughton., cirris:;, Pctona, and tlie defendau;? Xeil Donsghue and Co., Ltd., motor-truck dealers, Wellington. The amount claimed was £300, and the grounds of the claim that the- vehicle supplied waa not up to the warranty implied in the contract that the lorry was reasonably tit fov the pr.rpo.se for which it vat required. Mr. J. C. Peacock appeared for the plaintiff, and Kr. A. Fair -for i\\\ defendantr. iir.,J. Dalrymple was foreman of the jury.

The facts in brief were thai the plaintiff, originally a paintei, decided to take up the business of ..currier, plying betwucii Petone .-.nd Wellington and eisewbeva. In pursuit of this idea he entered hi February, 191S, into an agreement to purchase- from -th?■-■defendants a Smith Form-a-trnck-motor-lorry, with an Avgyle engine-. Ko. 0259, on the hire-pr.rcfiase system. The capacity -.vv.s stated- at one ton. and. according"t 0 the plaint:. I*'.? evidence, he had been assured that the engine wks capable of -developing between 30 and 40 hprce-power. The plaintiff had informed- the defendants of the purpose for which the motor-truck was re quired', and relied en the defendants" skill

and judgment in supplying a lorry' reasonably fit for the purpose. • Under the terms of the hire purchase agreement the plaintiff paid over £200 towards the full sum of £630, and he undertook to pay off the remainder in instalments of £15. each month. The .plaintiff paid £200 by the end of February, and another £100 on the 28th March.''l9l9. Further: experience v/ith. the truck whs not satisfactory to th« plaintiff, and led eventually to the present action. The claim was that the true': was not reasonably fit for the purpose,?: "3 the engine was inadequate in power and worn out. The plaintiff claimed a return of £300. including £300 fov the difference between « the money paid to defendants and the present value of the truck, estimated at £100, and £50 for money expended in repairs.; and 550 for loss of time through breakdown;. Parts.of the engine and clutch were put in as exhibits to show the state. The engine -w?.s said to be a second-hand light car engine, developing 10 td 14----horao-power. The plaintiff stated, that lie had only been able to use.the truck for about', five weeks in five months. A breakdown of the clutch necessitated heavy repairs.

.Against f.he claim was a counter-claim by the defendants for the possession of the lorry, 550 damages foi injuries caused to'the lorry through alleged bad driving, and £7 7s 6d foi repairs effected. It was further submitted that the sti\te of the engine at present was no indication of its condition.in February,. 1919. . In the recital of his experiences with the truck, the plaintiff described almost every kind of motor trouble, ending with the brealcins; «f the crank shaft, which could not be replaced. The track had remained at the garage'ever since about Bth July.

. At this stage the Court was adjourned until the afternoon.