REPAIRS TO A MOTOR CYCLE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 14221, 12 February 1917, Page 6

REPAIRS TO A MOTOR CYCLE.

The hearing of the case of John Burgess, garage proprietor (Mr Willock) v. Herbert Ernest Tweed, monumental mason (Mr Coleman), a claim for £10 4s 9d for overhauling! and .repairing a motor cycle, was resumed at the Magistrate's Court, before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., this afternoon. . Andrew Davys, mechanical engineer, deposed that 3s 6d an hour "was a reasonable charge for a first class mechanic. He did not know the machine, in question. Plaintiff gave evidence that he had been -handling motors for the last 17 years and had had a good deal to do with the Indian motor cycle. None here would know more about them than he did. Witness put in 23i hours, one man (paid Is 6d an hour) 27 hours, and another man (paid Is 9d an hour) 7A hours, on the job in question, Defendant had asked witness to overhaul the machine and side-car and do what was required to put them in good running order. Nothng was said about price. Witneite charged 3s 6d an hour *or All work. Defendant did not. know much about the machine and wStnees instructed him. When defendant took the machine away he did not then ask what the charge was. Witness sent an account about three weeks later and four days afterwards, defendant returned the cycle .and said everything; was wrong that could I be wrong. Witness examined the machine and found it only required adjustments which hoi put right. Any- ; body with a knowledge of cycles could j have made the adjustments and had defendant followed the instructions in the book witness gave* him he could liave done it himself. The average charge for this work was 5s an hour. — To Mr I Coleman : The- motor company, for [ which witness ,*had been foreman, could not have donei the job cheaper. The work for which the motor company said they would chargo from 25s to 30s was not the same as witness had done. Defendant took the machine away on Saturday, October 14, and brought it back on the 16th. Witness admitted the brake liad been put back wrong. Witness blamed his man but did not call him a duffer. It was only a simple • mistake. "This was .the only work that should have been done before the cycle went out. It took about an hour. The extra 10.t hours were for othei* work done. The man who worked on this job was with witness for little over four weeks. He was put off because witness, was a bit slack. Witness took on another man the next week, the man bringing a job in with him. Witness was not having a lot of disputes about overcharges. He, had one a short time ago with Mr Rodgrave, 'and "came down" becausp he was wanting money at the time. His charge was about £ll and he reduced it to £9 10s. He had had no dispute as to the quality of the work; not from Mr Foster for work done to the bus. There was a dispute with Mr Fostpir, but witness hoped to have that cleared rip. — To Mr Willock : j Redgrave was satisfied with witness* price but the client objected to Redgrave'e price.