REPAIRS TO A MOTOR CYCLE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLVIII, Issue 4472, 13 February 1917, Page 6

REPAIRS TO A MOTOR CYCLE.

INTERESTING CASE AT COURT. The attention of Mr W. A. Barton, S.M was engaged at the Magistrate s Court for some time yesterday afternoon dealing with the ease of John ■Burgess (Mr Willock), v Herbert Ernest Tweed, (Mr Coleman) for the wages of himself and a workman for 58i hours at 3s 6d per hour for repairing h motor cycle, or a total or £lO 4s 9d. for work done on a motor Cy Mr Willock, in opening said that it was a claim for repairs done by ■plaintiff on account of the defendant. Defendant had refused payment and plaintiff had been conlpelled to claim the amount for work done by him. Andrew Davys said that he had been engaged in engineering work for 50 wears and had done repair wort to motor cycles. The rate of pay claimed by the plaintiff was the usual charge for a first-class woikman. John Burgess, motor engineer, said that he bad been engaged in motor work for about 1/ years aiid had he cl the position of head mechanic in v arious garages for a number of years. Witness had had a- large amount of experience with machines similar to the one owned hv defendant and the firm he worked for in Hastings was the sole agents for Hawke’s Bay. 'Hie time actually taken for the work to defendant’s machine, was self 23-J hours, one workman 27i hours and another 7& hours. Plaintiff supervised the work and was present nearly the whole time. Defendant came to him and asked him to overhaul his machine and put it in good running order. There was no mention as to what the price would be. Witness had a standard price of 3s. 6d per hour - The machine was dismantled and completely overhauled, and witness told defendant that the machine would need, a long run for a trial and that he (plaintiff) would put T anything right that went wrong. When defendant took the cycle away lie did not ask what the charges would he and witness posted the account about a fortnight after the delivery of the machine. About three or four days later defendant came to liis shop and complained that the machine was gojug -wrong everywhere. Witness told him that he would do any adjustments that was necessary. If defendant had understood the machine lie would have been able to rectify it himself. To Mr Coleman : Witnest said that the price. (25s to 30s) quoted by the Tourist Company at Hastings for overhauling, was only for overhauling the cylinders. Defendant took the machine away on October 14 and brought it back on the 16tli and left it at the shop. , . c Mr Coleman: You charged defendant for 10 hours’ work after the 16th. —I charged for about 1-1 hours for putting on a tyre and also for re-adjusting a side-car. , , How long did it take you to put the tyre on ? Witness: From an hour to an hour and a half. Did defendant tell you that . the machine was running on one cylinder only ?■ —Yes, and a boy got him out of his trouble. You have had a number. of complaints about your work and youi charges?—l had one .customer uho complained of my price (£11), being too high and it was reduced to £J 10 s . I have had no complaints regarding the quality of the work. , Mr Coleman said that defendant had taken the cycle, which was a Sec-ond-hand one, to another mechanic, and had been charged £5. His Worship: You must have the evidence of the mechanic to prove this W JIr Coleman: The man absolutely refused to give evidence to affect the case one way or the other and if he was compelled to come he would not say anything. His Worship: If that is the case he can be compelled to appeal . Mr Willock said that be objected to these charges against a man because it was only at His Worship’s suggestion that Mr Coleman had decided to call him as a witness. It was decided that the witness should be called. . John Foster, motor-bus proprietor, crave evidence that he hacl had work done by the plaintiff. Some was satisfactory and some was not. In one case plaintiff made a mess of his gear box and witness made him take- the new one off and put the old one back. Herbert Ernest Tweed, the defendant. said that lie had had the cycle about six weeks when lie took it to plaintiff. It was not starting as well a s it should. Before witness bought the machine he got. an experienc motor mechanic to give it a trial ana witness was told that it needed a few minor adjustments. When got the bicycle on October 14, plaintiff said that it might.require + aYew minor adjustments and if so to take it back Witness gave it a trial on the loth and found that the brakes would not work and that the oil was running all over the machine. It was generally out of order. Witness- went hack to plaintiff on the 16th and told him how lie had found things and left it to he adjusted. When witness got it on the 18th it was still running badly with the exception of the brakes which were Sired. Witness rode tlie bicycle for a few days and -foundthat one of the cylinders bad stopped working. At this stage Stephen jluteheaj, ancfwaT'called/' He & stated that be knew the defendant and had done ;Tnew°vaSrspSpiea the "X SIUaJ TO,Should be the cost of them? , Witness : About 2os per set. What was your charge for the «ork?—Almut &>• tllat the I"'"' ' Mb -iris n n'Ke'neeY !“* tSe. ? About SB m M?Coleman: Wlmt condition was the- machine in when you . Witness: The engines were cl earn His Worship : What would you estimated or 'overhauling an Indian machWitness: From £o to £9. Smmosino- it had been pi ope y over rmled bv plaintiff could the machine have been made in tlie condition fled with the price charged by the Willock: Witness said that between tlie time lie got numb urn from plaintiff and took. i * Whitehead lie had travelled about 300 m Fis Worship said that the witness Whitehead gave ihe machine a thorough overhaul for £o, and the time taken over the work was two days. It was just possible that the cycle •va's pub in-fair order bv the plaintiff and it might have got into this condition on account of lack of expedience on the part of the defendant. Jndg ment was/ given for the .plaintiff fo £6 and costs amounting to £2 l»s.