MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 12 May 1927, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

BREACH OF WARRANTY ALLEGED.

Breach, of warranty was alleged by J. O’Connor, contractor, of Manaia, in the Magistrate’s Court at Hawera yesterday before Mr J. S. Barton, S.M.

Plaintiff claimed from E. A. StaJlard, farmer, of Stratford, the sum of £IOO in respect to a motoiytruck bought from defendant for £l3O, and which, plaintiff alleged, defendant had warranted, both verbally and in writing, to be in good order. Plaintiff claimed that the truck was not in good order and was -worth about £3O. Plaintiff, for whom Mr O’Dea appeared, in evidence said that he had *jjeen told by defendant that the truck was in good order. He had paid £l5O for it, a copper, separator, weighing machine and shed. The shed was “not worth picking up,” and the copper, etc., might have been worth, say, £2. On taking possession of the truck he had fonud very few tools, and no benzine in the tank. He had had considerable trouble in starting, and next day he had taken a mechanic to look at the machine, and the latter had remarked after starting the engine after much trouble: “It’s a good job you.didn’t try carting wood with that truck; you would not have gone far.” The truck was eventually taken into a. garage, and it had cost £32 to put it in order. Plaintiff had had work to do, but could not do it owing to the state of the lorry. He had written to defendant stating that the lorry was not satisfactory, and had explained t-liat the truck would not pull a cord of wood up the Oeo- hill, and that two mechanics had l>ecn unable to make it work satisfactorily. It was later found, said plaintiff, thatthe engine had a cracked block and Washers were missing from the hack wheel, etc. He had had the truck overhauled by another firm, and as a result the truck was now in a more satisfactory state. To Mr A. K. North' (counsel for defendant) plaintiff said that he had told Stallard that he would not buy the machine until he had had. it examined. When this had -been done he had made an offer of £l3O for the lorry and £4f> for the balance of the goods.

Counsel: “Did you not say in your letter to Stallard that the lorry would have to be taken down and that it would cost a good bit?” Plaintiff: “Yes.” Counsel: “And yet you say that you did not know that the machine would need taking down?” Plaintiff: “Yes.” Further questioned, plaintiff said that he could not remember Stallard guaranteeing the truck in subsequent conversations.

At this -stage- counsel for plaintiff explained that, witness’s “yes” often meant “yes, I hear you.” Plaintiff said he understood all along that the car was in good, running order. He had really not known that the engine required taking down. He denied that lie had understood that to be the case, even though he had mentioned it in a letter to Stallard. He had noticed grease running from the back wheel, but did not expect to find all the defects that had been found/ Patrick O’Connor, brother of plaintiff, said that he had looked at the car, but had not shifted it at all. He denied going under the car to- examine the engine. He had had no experience with cars and could not drive one. Although he had given his brother the figures he really had no idea of what the truck was worth.

Questioned by the Magistrate, witness said: “I really don’t know much about it.' There are plenty of better speakers at the back of the court just dying to have a go.” " E. Clark, mechanic, of Manaia, was the next witness called. He deposed that his firm bad done considerable repairs to the truck. He himself had effected repairs to the rear axle to the value of £ I 15s. He thought- that the truck at the time was worth not more than £BO.

Albert New, foreman mechanic, of Manaia, detailed the repairs effected by him. The truck he considered had been in a. bad state for some time. He considered the car at that time was worth £6O or £7O at the most.

To Mr. North he said it was generally assumed that “taking down and overhauling” meant taking down and overhauling the- engine. The cracked block might have occurred while plaintiff was driving the four miles he did after taking delivery. He was not -sure how long that crack had been there, but it could have been there some time. Certainly the car was not in good order when lie saw it, It was plain that the engine had not been taken clown for some time.

Counsel for defendant, after opening his case, called IT. F. Latham, manager of the Egmont Motor Company, in evidence said it was generally understood that taking down and overhauling a car meant general attention to the engine. For a car of that age it|would need to have had fairly hard work to be worth only £7O or £BO. Lack of water or oil, or a heavy load on a steep hill, could have caused the crack in the cylinder block.

Defendant in- evidence said that the question of the warrantry was not. raised until lie wji.s returning to Stratford after plaintiff had agreed to take the truck.

Cross-examined hv Mi - . O’D'on, defendant denied that lie had undertaken heavy carting on the mountain. Me had told plaintiff on several occasion* that the truck wa-s in good running order.

lie could not explain why the witness. New, said it was not in good order. The truck had never carried over a cord of Wood to his knowledge, although lie- had done a considerable amount of running about. Henry Kelly, caretaker, of Piluima. said that llie truck in question had been left si-t lii.-s property. He remembered the plaintiff and lii-s brother coining to see the car. They did not start the engine no-r, -as far as- lie knew, go under the vehicle. John Henry Hili, farm hand, said that he knew the truck in question and had found the engine .always in -good order. In mumming up. his Worship said that plaintiff re-lied on the question of a. war-run fry being given. It was proved that be. had boon told in the first instance that the truck was in good order, lii his letter to defendant, however. be stated that the truck would have to- be taken down. Plaintiff’.' valuer bad -seen the- vehicle and hud estimated -its value at £l3O. A man could not back out of a bargain because lie found that the valuer was no good. Plaintiff could have seen that the tyres- were not much good.

The only thing which might have affected the case was the cracked cylinder. ll’ plaintiff had bad the truck overhauled before using it, it may 'have proved that the defect existed before the sale. He had not done this however.

Judgment w;as given for defendant with costs amounting to £7 3s.

/MISCELLANEOUS CASES

At the Court, before Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., this morning, Robert Hanslen, who said l that he had gone into the Commercial Hotel to secure accommodation for a friend (after hours), found that Ids courtesy cost him £1 10s; the 10s being court costs. A 'Maori statutory fir.st offender, who had imbibed too freely of the product of the hop vine, was fined 12s (id and was given a week in which to pay. Joseph Mathis, for allowing noxious weeds to flourish o* his property, was, on the, information of the Inspector ot Noxious Weeds, fined l()s and 10s costs. “It’s cheaper than going to the races,” said defendant on leaving the court.