CIVIL CLAIM.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 304, 21 November 1934, Page 5

CIVIL CLAIM.

TREATMENT OF TYRES. In the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., H. R. Blade, a carrier, of Palmerston North, proceeded against S. Lamb, of 230 AVakefield Street, Wellington, a vulcaniser, carrying on business under the style of Lamb's Remoulds, claiming £9 15s paid for the retreading of two motor lorry tyres, it being alleged that a guarantee as to extra mileage had not been fulfilled. Mr A. M. Ongley appeared for plaintiff and Mr L. M. Abraham for defendant. The statement of claim set out that in or about April, 1934, plaintiff delivered to defendant, by his agent, two tyres. Defendant, by his agent, warranted that the tyres, when remoulded, would give service for a further 5000 miles. The statement alleged that the tyres were of no use after approximately 300 miles of service. Plaintiff therefore claimed £9 15s paid for the remoulding of the tyres. Hugh Robert Blade, plaintiff, gave evidence that he had been canvassed by Mr AVilson for the retreading of two tyres on the rear wheels of witness’s lorry. AVilson said the tyres would then be good for another 5000 miles. The tyres were done and replaced on the lorry on April 15. From then to May 24 he had done only the usual carrying and had had only 300 miles of running. On a return journey from Alfredton to Palmerston North, when the lorry had on a cord and a half of wood, one tyre blew out. There was a fault in the other retreaded tyre, it being in a weak section. The tyre had not been' used again because of the weakness. AA’itness did not count the tyres of any value now. Cross-examined, witness said the term used by AVilson was “retread” and not “remould.” AA’ilson said he was defendant’s representative, although he had not produced documentary evidence to that effect. Allan Harman, employed in retreading and remoulding tyres by a Palmerston North firm, said in evidence that a patch inside one tyre had obviously been put there because of a weakness in the fabric, though that was not the tyre with the blow-out. The weakness had developed at that spot since the tyre had been remoulded. Either it had not been fit for remoulding or else had not been sufficiently reinforced. Mr Ongley reserved the right to call AVilson to prove his agency with Lamb’s Remoulds. Mr Abraham asked for a non-suit on the grounds that AVilson’s agency with defendant had not been proved. The Magistrate held over any decision on the matter in the meantime.

Stanley Lamb, defendant, gave evidence that there had been no suggestion as to AA’ilson being his agent. A trade discount would be given to all those engaged in the motor business. AA’itness knew nothing of any trouble with the tyres until he had received a solicitor’s letter upon the matter. 'He outlined the method of remoulding. His firm did not guarantee work “for 5000 miles” but guaranteed new materials and workmanship. Cross-examined, witness said that if the casing inside would not stand remoulding and would not give satisfaction then the tyres would not be treated. Defects in the body of the tyre could not be seen in detail until the tyre was opened up to allow that section to be inspected. It was agreed by both sides that the tyre should be opened up by an independent company to-day. The case was accordingly adjourned until next Tuesday.