DEAL IN TRUCKS

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 51, 29 August 1934, Page 10

DEAL IN TRUCKS

SAWMILLER'S CLAIM

JUDGMENT GOES AGAINST HIM

"I am satisfied beyond any doubt in my own mind that the plaintiff has not proven his case," said the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) at the conclusion in the Supreme Court today of the protracted hearing of an action concerning the purchase of two Ford V 8 trucks. Tho plaintiff was Robert Cairns Lee, sawmiller, of Featherston, with whom was joined K. Cairns, Lee, Ltd., a private sawmilling company, and the defendant was Ford Sales and Service, Ltd., motor dealers, Wellington. A declaration was sought by Lee and the company that they had validly rescinded agreements of hire-purchase or, alternatively, a decree rescinding them, and judgment for £603 17s lid, together with interest at 6 per cent., or, if no declaration of decree as asked is made, judgment for £583 17s lid as damages. Ford Sales and Service, Ltd., counter-claimed for £37 Ss 4d in respect of goods said to have been supplied to the plaintiffs and repairs executed by the defendant at*tho request of the plaintiffs. , Judgment was given for the defendant on the claim and on the -counterclaim, with costs in the action according to scale as on a claim for £603 17s lid. His Honour also certified for three extra days at 10 guineas: each and allowed -costs for an amended statement of defence. Provisional findings on the facts were given by his Honour at the conclusion of evidence yesterday afternoon, and after hearing counsel for the plaintiffs today he said.his views were unaltered. FINDINGS ON FACTS. His Honour yesterday afternoon said it appeared to him as then advised, subject to what counsel might have to say, that tlie representation made on. the sale of, the two: trucks was that their capacity was three tons. That was what Mr. Boche, the salesman, said, and, indeed, it was scarcely disputed by the plaintiff, if it was < disputed at. all, and .it was confirmed by Mr. Power, one of tho plaintiff's witnesses. ■ .Mr. Koche said frankly enough that he knew the circumstances of the plaintiff's business; that he knew.the purpose, for which the trucks were required^ and made the representation that the trucks were capable of carrying three tons of timber. ... It seemed to him, said. his Honour, that the , trucks were not. handled as they ought to have been.. Ho thought it was plain that1 they were overloaded, not once but fairly . consistently. He thought, too, that the placing "of a certain kind, of tire on the outside rims, which appeared to have been continued even after the plaintiff had been advised that it. ought not to have been done, was a contributing factor to the breakdown of the trucks. Under-infiation of the inner tire, he thought also, was a contributing factor, and he had no doubt-on the evidence that tho trucks were driven a great deal faster tLan they ought to have been driven, and ho thought that also contributed to the trouble. Anyhow, the onus of proof was upon-the plaintiff, and his Honour said ho was unable to find as at that stage, advised that he had discharged that onus- of proof. He went further than that and said that, having■ regard to the evidence of some of the plaintiff's witnncsses in . cross-examination and .to that of some of the defendant's witnesses in chief and ■in cross-examina-tion, it was at least probable, if not more than probable, that the trouble and difficulties in regard to the trucks were not du,e to anything done or omitted by the defendant, and that there could not be said to have been any misrepresentation. Speaking to counsel for the plaintiffs, his Honour said that at one stage he was rather impressed in favour of the ■ plaintiffs by a letter, ono of the exhibits, but that had been answered satisfactorily. ■ His honour said he thought the findings of. fact, disposed of the questions of law. "I feel very sorry for Mr. Leo in these transactions," added his Honour, "but I have to find the facts, you know, and I have to find them, fairly. I have to see that both sides arc fairly treated." His Honour said that his observation concerning Mr. Lee carried no reflection upon the defendant company. The company seemed to have met the position quite reasonably. What he meant was that he thought the plaintiff probably had not been treated as well as he might have been by some of his own people. He had no doubt that the company was still desirous of meeting the plaintiff in some reasonable way if it could. ' *•

Counsel for the defendant:. We have tried to since these proceedings were commenced; .

His Honour: It is not too late, yet. After hearing counsel for tho plaintiffs today, his Honour formally entered judgment for the defendant. The case was before the Court on six sitting days, and a mass of evidence was heard. .

Mr. J. S. Eeid (Lower Hutt)/appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. C. EvansScott for the defendant.