SEQUEL TO JOY RIDE.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXIII, 7 April 1927, Page 4

SEQUEL TO JOY RIDE.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES TO CAD

DECISION RESERVED.

JBoforo Mr C. R. Orr-YY 1 allcer, S.AI., | j at the Timaru Magistrate’s Court yes- - terday morning, Elizabeth Anne Cross, , of Tiinaru, claimed from, Amuri Alotors 1 Limited, the sum of £44 7s. ihe , statement of claim was to the chocc j that on January 22, 192 1, the didendant company, without receiving anv authorisation from the plaintdt, uufully or negligently delivered up a car to Eric Jolm Harding. The car luul boon garaged at the defendant s garage for some time. As the result ot s |l ch delivery, the car was damaged to such an extent that the sum of i-O would bo required to pay for its repair. Tlh> defendant company hail not cheered or offered to oll'cct repairs, although demand had been made by the plaintiff on the defendant company to have I such ropa-irs cft'ueted lit the cost ot j 1 lie defendant. In addition, the ! plaintiff had been deprived of the use 1 of the ear, and claimed that dcpreciaI tion had been caused to the same, rei suiting in a los* to her of £2-j. the losses were allegedly caused by the I defendant company not salely Keeping | and taking care of the ear in breach ot its contract .so to- do, while the car I was in its custody and care, i Mr J. P. Steven, appeared for Alls ! Cross, and Air R. A. Cuthbert (G.rristi church), and Air A. D. ’Mcßae for j defendant company. . ' j Ah- Steven said it was a simple ease i of* nc'digeuce on the part of the de- ; fondant company. The facts ivere i that on January 22, a youth named I Harding went to) the garago with some I trumped-up yarn and secured Hie car. j The plaintilf, under the circumstances, naturally looked to the company to ! pay the- damage done to the ca D EJ.Y? j also the loss sustained by plaintiff s i .husband. . , Elizabeth A. Cross, owner of the eai j said her husband had lull charge of the 1 car. .

To Air Cuthbert: The ear was purchased sornoi five or six years ago. it. became her car about throe, years ago, 1 when her husband gave it to her Jic was sure that the car was registered in her name in 1925. . , Cecil Thomas Cross, husband or plaintiff, said he presented the car to Airs Cross about three years ago. .1 ho car was purchased some three years ago, and he had driven it since that time. lie took the car to Amuri Motors, and said ho wanted to garage there. There was no suggestion ot piece, as he was of opinion that theic was a tixccl price. Deferring to the accident, witness said he was not in court on the day of the charge against Harding, but knew that lie had been convicted and fined. The damage to tho car consisted ot a cap oil the front wheel, the mudguard damaged, the engine run without oil, and other inniur damage. . , , lie estimated that tho car had been driven 300 miles. He did not instruct the proprietor of the garage to do any repairs. He knew Harding when ho worked for his brother. Harding never find witness’s authority to take the car. Tho damage to. the- ear had considerably inconvenienced witness in his insurance business. In reply to Air Cuthbert, witness said he was of opinion that four gallons of petrol were used by J Larding. Air Cuthbert: “You say there were three new tubes damaged. Can you produce these?” Witness: “Yes?” (Tlu-eo tubes were then produced.) Air Cuthbert: “Two of those tubes axo* new, but the other is absolutely worthless.”- . . In reply to further questioning by Air Cuthbert, witness said he always kept a good check of the speedometer. Ho put tho car in his wife’s name, but he did not do this to protect himself against his creditors. He had trouble with his landlord, and left the farm practically penniless. Ho estimated the value of the car to be about £l5O. Air Cuthbert: “I have several managers of prominent garages here, who will say that the car. is worth about £60.” , . ' , Witness: “Perhaps then" estimate would) go- up.if 1 wanted to purchase a now car from one of them.” Air Cuthbert asked witness if he could possibly give an estimate of the damage to tho mudguard. Witness said it was only’ minor dam-

age. Mr Cutliber£: Yon cannot give an estimate of tlio cost of repair. The bump supposed to bo done through Harding was also noticeable on other parts of the other mudguards. In reply to Mr Cuthbcrt, witness said that it was a downright lie that Mr Hunter estimated to him that the damage done while Harding had the car was £3. Harding had only,driven tlio car onco previous to the accident, and Gven then, that was not with witness’s authority. Witness did not tell the garage man who had lot tlio car out, that he was not to blame. He did not see much of Harding during the time lie was in his brother’s employ. Ho did not do any insurance business in November and December, but was employed in Mill and Co.’s store. Ho understood the car was in Harding’s possession till Sunday night, and Harding had had it for 24 hours. He did not give the garage permission to replace tlio bearing su the wheel. in reply to Mr Steven, witness estimated that there would be six or seven days lost in insurance business through the damage to tho car. He had been about hvo weeks on insurance, and would average about £6 per week. Arnold Cross, brother of the previous witness, said ho had had experience with different! cars for tho past fifteen years. Before the accident, the car was going well, and had) been carefully looked after. After tho aocident, however, the car was not worth £2O. The engine was difficult to start, an<| seemed as if it had seized up for want of oil. In reply to Mr Cuthbcrt, witness said tho car looked as 'if it had been in a riverbed. It certainly looked much better now. Mr Cuthbcrt: “It has not been touched.” He asked witness what ho would estimate the damage to tlio car to be. They would stare off with •the cap. ■ Witness: “About 10s.” The Magistrate: “They are 4s 6d to buy.” , . Witness: “I once paid 15s for one.” Mr Cuthbcrt: “A cap ir your

head?” Witness: “No, a motor cap.” Continuing, he estimated the damage to tho curtains to bo 15s to £l, the damage to the steering would necessitate a good deal of dismantling, and the tubes would bo worth- cl out £1 each. He examined the oil gauge, and found that the needle was out of night. . Mr Cuthbert: “Didn’t you know that there was always a icserva of cil in a Dodge car.” Witness: “I found I hat <vt this morning.”- Ho maintained that the engine had suffered through tho lack of sufficient oil. Mr Cuthbert said the company v.ruld have endeavoured to settle a just claim, had it not been for the large amount, which they considered dishonest. Tlio defendant company were not liable to tho plaintiff, as they | exercised reasonable care, while the ; car was in their custody, but the! damj age occurred while reasonable care had ! been taken. The claim was grossly ! unreasonable. On the night of JaiiuI ary, Harding went to the garage and asked for Mr gross’s car. He said

Air Cross wanted tlio car. Harding took the ear, and gave the impression that lie was to deliver it to the rightful. owner. J.t was reasonable under the circumstances, tor the garage people to think that Cross had given ins permission for the car to go out. The Magistrate said cu his opinion such an, action would be an encouragement to joy-riders. . Mr Cuthbert said lie wanted to impress oil tbo Magistrate that it .sonable care was taken. If »■ ma^ gara>'cd his car in the morning, it would he. hard for a watchman nor to deliver the car in the evening again, tiie car was recognised .y the applicant. The car was a tery o d one, and they estimated it- .0 bo w u tlx COO to £65. The vehicle I ad certainly been knocked about, but Leing ten years old, tlio engine was in teiliy good order. . At this stage the O.urt adjourned to inspect the vehicle. Perev Frederick Catta, night watchman employed by the defendant comnanv, said that at IO.JO on January 22, liardaig came to the garage end asked for Air Cross's car, stating it was a green car. Harding was tolcl tha. there was no. green car m ihe g.iage, and he replied that ho must have made a mistake. Witness told Haroing that Air Cross had a car, and he at I once identified the car ,n question Witness helped Harding cut with the. car, and Air Smith, a clerk ar the garage, went away nemo ''T.li him. Witness saw Air Cross niter, and Mr Cross told him that he was mm blaming witness for letting the ear go. out but “the young devil had taken it w.ihout authority.'' He could -see my diiferenco in the engmei .%fler Haicmg had been out in it. ~ In reply to -Mr Steven, witness said that no instruction had been given, but cars wore left in . the garage at the, 1 owner’s risk. Harding P•union out the ear to witness, and witness w About any suspicion, raised no ob.< - Con to him taking it. He d:d ot let anvone mine m get «• cdl > but usually used his dmcrcuon. John H. Smith, a clerk, employed by the defendant company, gave Miniiar evidence. ♦ In reidv in Mr Steven, witness sa>:d he did not tell Air Latta. that he was

lrioudly with Hunter. K }). Hunter. I imaru manage! tor the" defendant company, Kind that when Harding took tho oar, rt would bo worth about £65. AYhen tho car was returned to tho garage, there we e several mmor damages. hii, on m dieator was certainly low, but the indicator hi tho dashboard, which indicated that oil was pumping, showed this to ho so. No damage whatevm had been done to tho engine. nine year's wear, the engine at the ni-nopiit time was m reasonable lunna order. Ho estimated tins damage toSie about 2s tor the lmb cap, straightening the steeling ‘ u ’ side-curtain windows Is bd to -s each and tho tubes 12s 6d each. -ine steering was in a bad way before the SftfS cstiniated° £l2*° gSffV S tlic'ir S discretion" °They td frequently refused to give cars out without necessary proof. The Magistrate suggested that perhaps r, Delect system would abviatc said that to a criminal or* dishonest person, this system could ulso be uiotj ovci. In rcplv to Mr Steven, witness said he had frequently lieardv the car Din, and the engine was m good oidu. He was certain that the car was sufliciently lubricated wlien it was brought back to tho garage. Ho told Mr Cross that the damage to the car could be made good for & £3. AY lien it cmnetoa complete overhaul, tic quoted I I 1 this was not the damage done by |iaidig', but reasonable expenditure occasioned by nine years’ wear, rhej took reasonable precaution in piotect ing cars in tlici garage. Charles Edward Brown, garag« foreman for the defendant company, corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. Ho bad examined the engine, which .was every bit as good now as before the accident Witness "aid be bad put half a gallon of oil in tho car for Mr Cross on the day tho car was returned.. _ , John William Mantell, workshop foreman, corroborated the evidence given by the previous witneses. He was present and beard Mr Hunter give Mr Cross a quote for the damage done. ' Arthur E. Horwcll, branch manager for Adams Ltd., Tirnaru, saxl m his opinion, tho precaution taken by the attendant at tho garage was sufficient. Tho ticket system might be all light, but even then there was a ccita amount of risk. He realised it was ; « risk storing valuable cais. i‘ John McPherson.-, local manager for) Dominion Motors Ltd., said he agreed with the previous witness as to the custom of tho trade A lot had to be left to the human element. Mr Steven submitted that the company had taken tho risk and were liable lor any accident entailed by the peiniission given by the watchman. Ive"arding the claim tor .consequential damage, the man was driving the ear in a negligent manner, possibly withniif lubricant. . •Mr Cuthbert: “The suggestion is that tho man was lubricated and not th Continuing, Mr Steven' said the companv had acted most unfairly. They had not offered to pay any damage, 'l’lio plaintiff had been unahlo to secure any professional opinion as to the condition of tlm car. this no doubt being due to the fact that one garage would not want to go against the other. The Magistrate said that in view of the legal aspect involved. in .lie case, he would reservo liis decision.