CAR DAMAGED IN COLLISION.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 9 February 1927, Page 5

CAR DAMAGED IN COLLISION.

CLAIM POE. COST OF REPAIRS. At the Eltham Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr R. W. Tate, interest was revived in a motor collision which took place in July last near Anderson road, Eltham, in consequence of which Arthur D. Walker, farmer, of Ngaere, sought to recover the cost of repairs to his car, hire, and depreciation from Oswald Norman Thomas and Benjamin Booker, of New Plymouth. Mr N- H. Moss, Stratford, appeared for plaintiff, while the defendants were represented by Messrs J. IT. Croker, New Plymouth, and A. A. Stewart, Eltham. In the statement of claim it was alleged that on July 3, 1926, Oswald N. Thomas negligently and unskilfully drove a Hupmobile car owned by Beniamin Booker on the Mountain road between Eltham and Stratford, with the-result that the car was brought into collision with an _ Essex motor car owned by the plaintiff. The latter’s claim of £lO7 2s 6d comprised cost of repairs to car £B2 2s 6d, hire, of car for four weeks £5, depreciation in value of Essex car £2O.

Plainlffi in evidence said he had owned the car for only three or four weeks prior to the collision, and that it had don© about 600 miles; it was in perfect order and without a scratch. After the collision the mudguards were bent, radiator stove in, bumper bent and broken off, lamps and lamp stays broken, bonnet dented and front pan (or valance), engine suspension and axle twisted. He saw the car being taken down at Berg’s garage, Stratford, and instructed Berg to restore the car, as far as possible, to its original condition. He did not think the repair charges by Berg uere excessive. Tile hire of another car was necessary for fulfilment of his ordinary duties. His claim for depreciation was based on- irreparable damage and general appearance of the car. After the collision the car was slowly driven, on its own power, about four miles to bis own home,, and later towed to Stratford for repairs. To Mr Croker: He bad instructed M'- Berg to replace damaged parts with new parts and restore the car as nearlv as possible to its original conditioii, but*it was not his idea or wish to impose unwarranted expense on anybody in respect of repairs. To Mr Moss*: He anticipated being out of pocket even in the event of being awarded the full amount of Jamages claimedCharles Sheridan, foreman at Berg’s gnraue. corroborated the previous witness’s evidence in regard to the carnage sustained by the car, adding that the chassis was beyond repair, as *ere also the bumper parts, mudguards and axle. He had been authorised ' > use his discretion as to repairing •r replacing the chassis. Under examination by Mr Moss, witness said that he considered Berg’s charges were reasonable. From experience he doubted whether the chassis could be effectively repaired in the Dominion. He believed that the necessary appliances for repairing a ohassis so damaged as one under discussion were non-existent in New Zealand. The cost of a. new one was £22. as charged to plaintiff. He deemed it inadvisable to attempt repairs to tbe axle. The new axle cost £l2. He could have effected iepairs for £4 or £5. but would not guarantee its Tigidity if used on rough roads. The application of excessive heat in repairing would affect the temper, and running over a few pot holes would tend to again bend the axle. The , substitution of a new radiator shell ] was justified on the grounds of general j appearance. The stock shells were • supplied unnickelled, and the shell I fitted to plaintiff’s car had b'-en | niekelled in Berg’s workshop in order

tliat it should be in keeping with the rest of the car fittings. The amor at $ aimed for depreciation was reasonable, as in his opinion a car so damaged would depreciate 50 per cent on its total value.

To Mr Croker; He had been toeman of various New Zealand garages for about three years. He knew nothing as to whether Arthur -Soargo <a youth formerly employed by Berg) had been sent to the store at Berg’s bouse to repaint a chassis that had been part of a. burnt car and was alleged tc !ur> ; e subsequently been fitted to plaintiff’s car. He did not know where the new axle, radiator shell and . mudguards j came from. He did not unpack every case on its arrival at the garage; as a matter of fact he was oiton absent from the garage on business for several hours at a time. He would not swear , that the substituted chassis wts absolutely brand new-—it was given to him as such. ... Under persistent cross-questioning by Mr Croker to establish the fact' that some of the parts replaced were not new. and. assuming that such actually was the cose, witness '.still considered’s Berg’s charges reasonab’e. He did not know the exact cost of the new parts supplied, but he was sure the charges for labour were not excessive. He and his two assistants had expended SO hours on the work. Leslie Berg, garage proprietor, said that replacement charges had been made in accordance with the ruling retail prices. and labour had been charg.d at. os per hour. •To Mr Moss: He would swear that the chassis and axle put into plaintiff's car were new and purchased from the Dominion Motors, Ltd., Wellington, as were all the substituted parts. Some of .the parts in Question were specially ordered for the iob. He knew Arthur Suargo. who had' left his employ about November bast, after a few months’ service, and was quite unaware of Spargo’s motive in making .statements derogatory to witness’s business. He was positive the chassis and axle put into Walker’s car were new and not parts taken from one owned by John O’Shaunessy, which had been burnt and subsequently sold to witness. _ ; To Mr Croker: The chassis, in p laintiff’s car was purchased new from the Dominion .Motors. Ltd., and was not the chassis from O’Shaunessyjs car —a 1923 model and entirely unsuited to a 1926 model, owing to structural differenefs. Tic knew fi lorry driver mimed Gumpbel l who visited his gaTage in. company with Benjamin Booker, one or the defendants in this case. Hei did not remark to Campbell that Walker a man of means —would have to pay him a, great deal more for repairs and replacements than anybody else would Mr Moss requested an adjournment to enable him to combat evidence for which he was unprepared, amd also per-, mit the production of evidencei as to whether the chassis of a 1923 Essex model can be'adapted to a 1926 mode . Mr Croker’s opposition to this course was over-ruled bv the Magistrate, and an adjournment to the next sitting ot the Court- was granted.