TRIALS OF A NELSON MOTORIST

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 14 July 1925, Page 4

TRIALS OF A NELSON MOTORIST

WITH A SECOND-HAND CAR

DEFENDED CIVTL ACTION

The sale of a second-hand motor-car was the cause of a defended civil action heard at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr T .E. Maunseil, S.M., when R. S. Andrews (Mr Kerr) claimed from C. Tickwell (Mr Kemnitz) £2l, balance of purchase money (£4O) for car sold to defendant. One of the conditions of sale was that plaintiff would put- the car in thorough going order. Defendant counter-claimed

£2O, cost of repairs to car since purchase in April last. During the evidence considerable amusement was caused by witness for defendant describng the vagaries of the car.

“It’s a pretty old ear, isn’t it?" queried counsel for defendant, when examining his client-. “I am given to understand it was horn about 1908,” was the reply. Further light was shed on the ear by another witness, who remarked that i., made “a noise like a chaffcutter,’’ and that people “slung off” at it while going along the road. When being put in second gear “the noise would wake the dead,” lie declared. The witness also feelingly referred to what he termed “an exhibition start” in Hardystreet, when half the town was attracted. A trip to Appleby followed, where witness was stuck up from 9.30 to 4 before he could get. the engine started, and a start was made for home. When Stoke was reached “she conked out.” After a little more treatment the car moved ahead “and jerked all the way home.” Another witness said the car “knecked like a kerosene tin full jof bottles” ; and, that personally he would not have taken it out for more than a- mile; and even then he “would have wanted down hill all the way home.”

Plaintiff said the car was all right when defendant took it- over. Other witnesses gave eivdence to the effect that the car was in a satisfatcory condition. one stating that defendant had told him “she's a daisy; she’ll do me all right.” Defendant, however, denied that- he had passed any such complimentary remark about his purchase. The Magistrate, in giving his decision, referred to the condition of sale, that the ear would be put in thorough going order. As a tradesman he should have known that the car was nearly worn out, and was likely to be “cussed” almost by anyone using it. He (the Magistrate) considered the car was only fit for breaking up. and for plaintiff to undertake to put it in thorough-going order was a very improvident thing.. It was, he said, not- necessary for defendant to have brought- a counter-claim. Defendant would be non-suited, without costs, on the counter-claim, and judgment woul f ] he given for defendant on the claim, with costs £5 17s.