REPAIRS TO CAR

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXVI, Issue 3444, 17 March 1932, Page 5

REPAIRS TO CAR

CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. DECISION RESERVED. Bristling with technicalities in connection with the motor industry, the hearing of a claim and counter-claim occupied the greater part of Tuesday's sitting cf the Te Kuiti Magistrate's Court, over which Mr. F. W. Platts, S.M., presided. Harold Edwin Martin, garage proprietor, of Te Kuiti, sought to recover from Samuel Pratt, butcher, of Mokau, the balance of an account of £65 (£4O of which had previously been paid) for alterations and repairs to a Rugby motor car owned by defendant, and which had been badly damaged when it went over a bank on to the beach near Mokau.

Mr. J. Hine represented Martin, and Mr. E. M. Mackersey appeared for Pratt. The defence was in the nature of a counter-claim, bad workmanship being alleged. Samuel Pratt gave evidence that in 1929 he bought a new Rugby car from Martin. Last winter the car went over a bank and was substantially damaged. It was taken to Martin's garage, and it was arranged that the 5seater body should be converted into a half-ton truck. About four weeks were occupied in making the repairs, and Pratt took delivery of the vehicle on July 23, 1931, and paid on account the sum of £4O. Counsel for Pratt said the car failed to give satisfaction. The radiator was not properly fitted and water flew back on to the windscreen. The steering was defective, and after the car had been brought into town, it still failed to give satisfaction. The wheels were then further attended to. Cross-examined by Mr. Mackersey, Pratt said the accident occurred about July 3. The car functioned properly up to the time of the accident. Bradley (Martin's mechanic) saw the car when it was being removed after the accident, and it was arranged to give a rough quote for repairing the damage. The car was in the garage just over four weeks. When Martin saw the job he thought it would take about ten days. Delivery was taken on July 23, and a cheque for £4O paid. He drove to Mokau on a wet night. On the way out he noticed nothing amiss except the steering, though he travelled slowly on account of the rain. The following day he noticed the wheels were out of alignment. Water from the radiator kept coming on to the windscreen, and running down the engine. Mr. Winstanley, of Awakino, told him the wheels were out of alignment, and he rang up Martin on the phone, who said he would send his assistant to rectify the faults. The car was taken" to the garage and was there from Friday to Sunday, when it was returned. The neck of the radiator was not attended to and the steering was still defective. Six weeks later Martin's assistant came out to Mokau and brought with him a sleeve for the neck of the radiator. Bradley, the assistant, said the body of the car was not removed from the chassis, only the engine and radiator. The car was still 'not running satisfactorily, and Martin never came out to see it. The radiator had been placed close to the right mudguard, a piece of which had been cut out to allow for fitting the radiator. Finally, a summons was issued. The car was taken to McAdam's garage, and Martin was given an opportunity to check measurements. In his counter-claim Pratt claimed £25 as McAdam's charge for work on the car, which had been there 'nine days, a day's wages for the man returning the car, and 8d per mile for benzine, oil, wear and tear—an extra amount of £6 18s.

Cross-examined by counsel for plaintiff, Pratt admitted the car had been a bad wreck. It turned a somersault, but landed on its wheels. The engine was not damaged, but the chassis was bent, and there was some doubt about it being fixed up. The car was not insured. Martin gave him a rough estimate of between £35 and £4O for repairing the car. Martin's statement that he told him the price would be between £6O and £7O was not correct. After being advised that the car would be ready, he came for it on July 23, when he handed Martin the cheque for £4O, no definite date being arranged for payament of the balance. A week later (August 1) the car was brought into town. Two months later he received a letter from Martin regarding payment. Following several further communications, he finally ignored them. The car was used once after being stripped at McAdam's. The speedometer showed an increase of 305 miles. Pratt denied having got a price for fixing the car from another firm. He had been put to considerable expense hiring cars in order to carry on his business. He paid £1 per day for the first car he hired, but being unsuitable for his trade, he was now being charged £1 10s per day for another vehicle. He had paid £1 per day for 22 days for the first vehicle. Giving evidence in support of Pratt's claim, Gordon Rex Burnett (foreman at McAdam's garage) admitted looking over Pratt's car. The radiator was considerably to the right, the guide for the cranking handle having been filed on left-hand side, indicating that there had been trouble on a previous occasion. The lamp bracket was also bent. It was arranged that the body should be taken off and the chassis stripped. A diagram was handed in, showing-the technical faults detected after the car had been dismantled. Witness would say the work was not a workmanlike job. He thought it was possible for the chassis to be restored to almost its former position.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hine: Witness did not know that the car had formerly been a 5-seater. He admitted that sometimes a new car might have the radiator slightly to the right or left, though this was due to faulty assembly, the central position being the correct one intended by the designers. He admitted he did not know that the Rugby engine was set slightly down at the rear. He would charge £4 for dismantling and £8 for reassembling. The total charges for work on the car amounted to £25.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mackersey, witness said a severe accident would be necessary to force back the axle. Walter Douglas Winstanley, garage proprietor, of Awakino, deposed to having seen the car following repairs by Martin. He said the wheels appeared to be four or five inches out of line. Following further adjustments he noticed a pull to the right when the car was running. The radiator was out of line, the starting handle would not engage, and the left dumb-iron showed about 1% inches to the left.

Mi'. Hine: Don't you think Mr. Pratt has got a pretty fair job for £65? He might think so, but I wouldn't.

Witness denied any knowledge of a further accident to the car since it went over the bank.

In outlining the case for Martin, Mr. Hine submitted that Pratt got a satisfactory job. The work was completed in three weeks. Owing to the urgency with which Pratt required the car, Martin specifically stated that there would have to be minor adjustments made later. The car had done considerably over 13,000 miles. Most of the complaints were made when demands were forwarded for payment. Martin would say he quoted £6O to £7O for the job, and not £3O to £4O. Counsel submitted that Burnett did not know a great deal about that particular make of car — the Rugby. There were indications that went to show there must have been another accident. Harold Edwin Martin, garage proprietor, of Te Kuiti, said he had been in business since 1915. Before the accident Pratt asked him to grind the valves of his car. The next communication he had was a letter informing him that the car had met with an accident. Nothing more was heard till the following Sunday, when he sent his assistant mechanic to inspect the car, and bring back a list of the damaged parts. The cost of the spare pai-ts as then ascertainable "would be £3O, and the whole job in the vicinity of £6O or £7O, which information he conveyed to Pratt. In conversation over the phone, Pratt told him not to do any unnecessary work, .to replace any parts that could be put back, and also told him to put a %- ton truck body in place of the former 5-seater one. On arrival of the car on July 1, after dismantling, he informed Pratt regarding the new parts that would be necessary, also particulars regarding rear axle and the other necessary repairs. After the examination of the car he estimated spares to cost about £2B. On being informed regarding cost, Pratt told him to go on with the job, and not to spend too much money on it, as he could not afford it and must keep within a fair price. Witness worked overtime in order to complete the job for Pratt, who, when taking the car away on July 23, expressed satisfaction at the manner in which the work had been executed. Later Pratt complained regarding the radiator, which along with the steering gear, was properly adjusted when the car was brought in. The car was tested for 1% hours and ran perfectly. No complaint was made about the chassis being bent until a summons was issued. Regarding the radiator being a little to the right, this was accounted for by the band on the radiator core being too wide, having been welded by a radiator repair specialist too much to one side, throwing the studs out of line, and thereby necessitating the filing of the holes to one side in the crossmember, in order to fit the radiator properly. The engine did not need aligning, as it was never out of alignment. The badly twisted crossmember had to be heated in order to straighten it. Of the six crossmembers on the car Only the one in front was damaged. In reply to questions Martin fully described the effects on the different parts of a motor car if the various units were out of alignment. If the car had been insured, the insurance company would have classed it a total loss, as £IOO was the amount of insurance cover on such cars. Seven months of satisfactory running showed that a thoroughly satisfactory job had bee'n done. The car was in the garage for 23 days. Something must have happened to the car since it left the garage, to have caused the bends and dents now complained of. No undue wear was noticeable on the tyres. Raymond Walter Bradley, assistant mechanic at Martin's garage, gave corroborative evidence regarding bringing the car into Te Kuiti, and also of working on the vehicle. J. Hine, solicitor, of Te Kuiti, testified to having checked the speedometer reading on 25th February, on the second occasion when the car was brought in, this showing 13,085 miles, while about a week later the reading was 13,390 miles—a difference of 305 miles.

Expert evidence for Martin was also given by Arthur Austin Moonie, motor mechanic, and Lawrence Harold Harford, tyre expert. After the conclusion of the evidence the magistrate arranged to inspect the car on Wednesday morning at the garage, and after measurements and a thorough inspection had been made, his Worship reserved his decision.