TRUCK TRIALS

Southland Times, Issue 20496, 26 May 1928, Page 5

TRUCK TRIALS

FORD CAUSES TROUBLE. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. The mechanical drawbacks of a secondhand Ford truck were aired before Mr G. 1 Cruickshank, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court , yesterday afternoon when Frederick Bowden, ( an Invercargill auctioneer, proceeded against I Robert Ferrier for the sum of £6O, being the price of a Ford truck sold to defendant. Plaintiff was represented by Mr C. Robertson and Mr F. G. O’Beirne appeared for defendant. Defendant’s counsel stated that Bowden had sold a motor truck to defendant, who had taken delivery and still had possession. The defence was that the motor truck was not in the good mechanical order the buyer had been led to believe. Frederick Bowden said that Ferrier had approached him about a motor truck and after witness had taken him to see one or two he had finally decided to buy one which witness had in his auction mart and which he had intended to use in his business. This was a Ford motor truck and witness had not guaranteed it in any way. Ferrier had signed an agreement to buy the truck, and a man had taken delivery of it for him, the understanding being that the purchase money was to be paid on January 7. As he received no money on that date, he rang up, and Mrs Ferrier answered the telephone. She said the truck was not worth more than £4O as the lights were in bad order, and they had decided they would not pay more. He saw Ferrier himself on the following Friday and had received the same reply. Cross-examined by Mr O’Beirne witness said he bought the truck from a man for £3O. Before selling the truck he had handed it over to a garage with instructions that it be put in working order, which cost him

£ll 18/1. He had known that, defendant meant to use the truck to travel round country meetings selling ice-creams. John Simpson Robbie, motor engineer, gave evidence that he had attended to the truck under instructions from Bowden. Alexander Adam Robertson and George Charles Robertson, storemen employed at Bowden’s auction mart, stated that they I had both driven the truck and found no < difficutly either in starting or driving it. * Robert Ferrier, fruiterer, said that when | he bought the car he was led to believe that it was in good order. He had found later that it would not reverse; also, when the lights were put on the engine backfired and stopped, and the truck was very difficult to steer. He had offered Bowden £4O, which he considered was quite sufficient in view of the state of the vehicle and as he had already incurred expense, having j to call a mechanic in to attend to it. The wife of the previous witness gave corroborative evidence. William Wright, motor mechanic, and 1 Herbert Schroeder, motor garage proprietor, stated that in their opinion the car needed repairs to the amount of £lO or £l2, ! Schroeder stating that he did not consider 1 the car was fit to go on the road and should not have been sold in the state it was. He said that with all repairs done ■ he considered -its value in the vicinity of ' £5O or £6O. The Magistrate said that in his opinion > defendant had nothing to claim. He had bought the truck with his eyes open and 1 he could not complain as no strict guaran- ■ tee had been given. The vendor had sup- : plied a second hand car and the defendant ’ should have given it a trial before buying ‘ I it. He accordingly gave judgment for plainr tiff for the full amount (£6O) and Court I costs £7 8/-. Leave was granted for appeal, security for costs being fixed at £l2. 5