CLAIM FOR £315.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 10752, 24 November 1928, Page 7

CLAIM FOR £315.

TROFRI.E OVER .AfOTOR TRUCK

COUNTER CLAIM OF £193

A claim for £315 for a motor truck supplied was made by Hatrick ami Co., of Wellington, against James J. Macdonald of Gisborne in the Supreme Court before .Air Justice Ostler yesterday. The defendant also counter-claimed £193 damages for alleged breach ol' warranty, .Air F. S. Spratr. of Wellington, appeared for plaintiff and Air G. .f. •feune represented the. defendant.

Sydney Brown, formerly employed by the firm, gave evidence ol the signed agreement made on Sept. IC, 11*27. between Hatrick and Coy. and Macdonald for the purchase of the truck.

Cross-examined by Mr .Tonne, witness stated that when he first interviewed Macdonald as a prospective purchaser he knew the truck was to lie used on the Gisborne and AVairoa road It was ;ff-ranged that £5 deposit was to bo paid, the balance of c 3.1 IT to be paid on delivery, hut he could not recall when the truck was to he handed over.

Ed. C. A’inour, AYellington, manager of tho firm.- produced correspondence that pn.ssed between his firm and Macdonald, showing arrangements for payment on delivery of the truck, on the basis of the original sale note. James J. Macdonald, the defendant. stated he purchased the truck from Hatrick and Coy. on Sept. 17, bis son driving it from Napier to Gisborne about the end of .October. The chassis was delivered to the body builders on the following day. but the work was not proceeded with immctliatelv. The foreman of the coach worlcs showed him that certain parts were painted over, making it appear that the vehicle was second hand. He wired to Hatrick and Coy. inquiring if the truck was the latest and received a reply in the affirmative. The body work was proceeded with and the truck earn© out of the works at the end of November. The vehicle was given preliminary trials round town and several small adjustments and repairs had to he undertaken. The first trip to Napier was made on December 10. the second trip being in January. Following upon complaints as to the running of the truck, it was put into the Gisborno Garage and he instructed the mechanic to find out the cause of the trouble, 'the vehicle was in and out of the garage several times, and although it always left on its own power it stopped several times running on the flat. Ho detailed. the trouble experienced with the truck refusing to move on another occasion, with tho result that it- had to be towed to the garage. fn March he instructed the mechanic to dismantle tho vehicle and ascertain the cause of the trouble. Later he found that part of the clutch had been worn more than half through, and ns tho garage carried no spares, the part had to lie built up by welding. The truck hail dona about 1000 miles, lie was later shown one of tho tyre tubes which boro six patches. Owing to the truck being out of order, he had on occasions to employ other trucks on the- Gisborne-Wniroa trip. Thu breakdowns became more frequent whilst another driver was employed on it, and he was finally compelled to put it out of commission late in April or early in Mnv this year. Me complained to Hatrick and Coy. concerning -the. truck in the hope of securing satisfaction and a truck that would perform the work required of it. Cross-examined by Mr Spratt, witness admitted ho possessed no technical mechanical knowledge of lorries, and was guided by the rneehnnics of the Gisborne Garage and by bis own sons. On one occasion be was unaware the choke was disconnected when it refused to move. Ho bad been given to understand by the garage there was some fault in the lorry, but he was unaware of the causes. He would not admit that during February, ‘ March and April the fact that the lorry did 500 miles a week was very fair running. He asserted that the lorry frequently broke down on the Gisborne-AVairoa run, and did not arrive at the destination until late at night or in the

early hours of the morning. He admitted that on the occasions of stoppages of the lorry around Gisborne, the Gisborne garage mechanic had no difficulty in starting the lorry after tinkering round with the engine. Jlo agreed that iie knew that ho had to pay Hit l balance of £3lO owing on the lorry on December 31, but declared that because lie was dissatisfied with .the vehicle he did iiot pay the money.

Alfred Burnand, ono of the drivers of the truck, who had ton years’ mechanical and driving experience, said he drove the truck through from Napier to Gisborne in 15 hours at the end of October. Ho gave corroborative evidence concerning tho painting over of certain parts of the lorry. On the first, trip lietwoen Uairoa and Gisborne, the truck' labored considerably, and on the. second and third trips the truck frequently stopped on the road. On one occasion tie had to obtain the assistance of roadmen to push the lorry up Alorerc Hill when the engine was in low gear and the hand throttle full out. Another trip the ■ truck took seven hours from AVairoa to Jobhn’s gate. On every trip there were frequent -stoppages on the fiat and the hills.

He admitted to Mr Sprat t that the loads carried by the truck were up to 2-lcwt., although the lorry was only designed to 20cwt. He denied that he had speeded in the truck when he first obtained it-, but be could rot explain why service drivers should have suggested he had been doing 50. He agreed that the defendant wculd have to relv on witness’s statements concerning the mileages of the truck and damage. He refuted the sugthat lie always endeavored lo TTeep m front of service ears on the road-

Thos. Traill, foreman of Sheen and Stveens, who built the body cn the truck, stated he formed the impression that, the vehicle was second hand because of the painting over of certain parts over the top of errmel. which had been chipped. The paint on the dashboards was thickly applied. whilst the valve stems and caution plates wore also painted, whereas on new vehicles they were generally burnished metal.

Alexander D. Davvs, engineer, said that the part of the clutch winch was welded was worn half way through. The metal was very soft Win. T. Griffen, monumental mason. stated he drove a truck similai to that purchased by defendant, stating that he carried loads up to two tons £ii the vehicle round town- and up to 30 ewt. on the East Coast road. He had never experienced am- trouble with the truck and had spent nothing in repairs.

Jas. Austin, laborer, employed by tbe R.W.D. at Alorere, stated that on seveial occasions'he had seen the truck climbing the hill with difficulty, and on one occasion had to push the truck to the ton. It was the ,'oke of the settlers of the road. At this stage Air Jeune intimated that ho had a further witness to call. hut. His Honor said he considered that counsel had absolutely faded to discharge his case. He d’d not want to. shut out any evidence. but counsel would have to close his case, with the right to call the witness at the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony. Air -Tonne elected to call several of the witnesses for plaintiff for the nurnose of cross-examination. He (Contd. at Foot of Next. Column.)