VALUE OF MOTOR-BUSES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19798, 19 November 1927, Page 14

VALUE OF MOTOR-BUSES.

COMPENSATION COURT CASE. EXPERT EVIDENCE CHALLENGED, DECISION EXPECTED TO-DAY* iA. lighter • vein was introduced-.into' a mass of controversial evidence concerning the second-hand value of the motor-buses taken over from the General Omnibus Company and R, H. Hieatt by the Auckland City Council when it was stated iii the Compensation Court yesterday that one of the vehicles described by the corporation's advisors as "disgraceful" and "valueless,", was still running to,l timetable.

The .hearing was the fourth day occupied in the case. The Court consists of • Mr. Justice Herdman and Mr. G. R. Hutchinson, assessor for the City Council, and the Hon. E. W. Alison, assessor fop the claimants. A total of 44 vehicles is involved, the G.O.C. claim being for £34,495 and that, of Hieatt for £8509. Mr. V. R. Meredith appears for the claimants and Mr. A. H.' Johnstone for the respondents. W. J. Cousins, managing director of D.S.C. and Cousins and Cousins, said the bodywork of many of the buses was in bad order. He had successfully tendered for a number of buses and tramcars for the City Council. He had' estimated the' new cost of the G.O.C. buses on a basis of £255 for a 15-seater body. The costing system adopted by an expert witness called by claimants did not appeal to him. Painting had been calculated at £64 a bus, but witness knew this work could be carried out to-day for £3O. "Valueless" Bus Still Running. Mr. Meredith said the Court should inspect an array of five buses which stood outside. One of the number was being used by the corporation in spite of the fact that its experts had valued the chassis at £7 and the complete vehicle at £6O 4s.

Mr. Johnstone: I am sorry the bus is, not here; the axle broke on the .way down.

Mr, Meredith: That bus is there. We checked it this morning. I also intend to show that another bus which respondents have termed "valueless"' wiis seen this morning with a full load of passengers.

The manager of a local firm of bodybuilders stated that two of tho buses taken over by tho corporation had never been in service. Ho disputed respondents' deductions for alleged usage. Grey Campbell said that a few hours previously ho had seen the "disgraceful" omnibus in tho Blockhouse Bay service. Asked how tho bus was running the corporation driver said "pretty good." Witness checked the engine number of the vehicle. His Honor: We do not know how much the corporation has spent on reconditioning the bus."

Mr. Johnstone submitted there was no merit in the claim for the lease of the G.O.C. garage, as expert evidence had proved the rental paid had been unduly high. Responsibility for the legislation under which the buses had been transferred rested with the Government. Rightly or wrongly, the intention of the legislation was to' protect city property, Claim Exceeds Original Cost.

Mr. Meredith: I am not suggesting the Court should award punitive compensation, but auy award should be in favour of the person who is hit. Mr. Johnstone, said tho. claim for £7772 for the supposed "fleet value" was absurd. His Honor: I understand the cost of the new vehicles was £31,100, whiio tho claim for the used fleet is £34,495. Mr. Johnstono said the suggestion of "fleet value" was largely discountenanced by the fact that about 12 of , the fleet were not required to maintain the services run beforo the council took charge. Tho G.O.C. buses had been overloaded and under-maintained. "It is a striking commentary on the evidence of the experts for claimants that they estimated the cost, of building identical buses at £55 more than was actually paid by tho G.0.C.," concluded counsel. Mr. Meredith said it was not suggested that individual second-hand buses were worth more than new models. His Honor,: We have evidence that some stood in the weather indefinitely. _ A body wo saw stripped was,palpably in a rotten condition. One frame had been welded five times.

Mr. Meredith questioned the qualifications of two of respondents' valuers. He said the corporation had indulged in gross exaggeration. His Honor t You make a claim for actually more than cost price and then you talk about exaggeration. Date of Assessing Value.

Mr. Meredith: The City Council surely considers public safety and it would not run the bus with a chassis valued at £7 unless it was sure of it. The council fought tooth and nail to get these buses off the road, and now it does not want to take them. ' Evidence has beon given by two witnesses who have done extensive work for the council and by an employee of the corporation. It is impossible for them not to have been tinged with the enthusiasm of the council in the depreciation of these buses. Legal argument ensued on Mr. Meredith's contention that the value of the buses should be computed from the date on which they were offered to the City Council and not at the date of possession. Counsel said _ that about £6OO was involved in this point. His Honor said the Court hoped to announce its award this mwning.