Disputed Motor Cycle.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 6 May 1919, Page 3

Disputed Motor Cycle.

At the Magistrate's Court at Palmorston last week before Mr Page, S.M., the Nonpareil Motor Co., (Mr Cooper) sued 11. Jiyan, of Levin (Mr Oakley), for £6, three instalments due on a motor-cycle. Defendant counterclaimed for £20 paid as deposit on the purchase of the ■motor-cycle. The dispute arose over the question as to ■whether the machine delivered to dedi'tVndant was the one he had agreed to purchase.

Defendant gave evidence to the effect that- 011 a Saturday night in December last he visited the Nonpareil Co.'s shop with a view to purchasing a motor-cycle He was fill own several machines, including a three-speed Douglas, v.liich lie was informed had only been used a little for demonstration work. After inspecting the machine he agreed to purchase it. and paid a deposit 011 it. The machine was sent on tostlie defendant at L-evin, and 011 inspecting it at the station there he found it was not tlie one ordered, and he refused to take delivery. The machine inspected in the shop was a practically new three-speed Douglas, .and the one sent to Levin was a twospeed, and showed signs of considerable wear, the mudguards and exhaust pipe being dented, and the paint scraped off. " Only one Douglas machine was shown to witness 111 the shop and he was absolutely eortain it was a threespeed one. . Under cross-examination witness admitted the agreement produced was the one he signed, but lie read it in a hurry and had not noticed that it specified a two-speed machine. AY. C. London, who was present when defendant ordered the -machine, said that the oue dhown to them was a thr'ee-speed and looked almost new. Samuel Hoopes, salesman for the Nonpareil Co., stated that he was present when defendant inspected the mo-tor-cycles. 'He looked at several different makes, and finally at the Douglas, which w-asi a. two-speed. He decided to take this one, and before completing the, purchase took the number of engine on the machine. Hie machine was subsequently sent to defendant. Cross-examined, witness admitted tint a demonstration was given to defendant 011 a three-speed Douglas, but tlnsl was after he had decideckon the two-speed. Tlie machine was la belled immediately it was sold. He was sure defendant never went near tht three-speed macn-

lne - , 1 1111 His "Worship suiil tluit lie would like to see the motor cycle ami would look at it when he visited Levin, .iftor which lie would give his decision.