APPEAL AGAINST S.M.’S DECISION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17647, 21 September 1925, Page 7

APPEAL AGAINST S.M.’S DECISION.

QUESTION OF REPAIRS TO AKAROA CAR. On the grounds that a iudgrnent given by Mr 11. V. Widdowson, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court, was not justified by fact, C-. Ramsay, married woman. Christchurch, appealed in the Supreme Court to-day before His Honour Mr Justice Sim. The defendant was Smith's Motors Ltd., and it was alleged in the Magistrate’s Court that the defendant had negligently repaired a motor-car owned by Mrs Ramsay. Mr Thomas appeared for Mrs Ramsay and Mr Iv. M. Gresson for the defendant. Mr Thomas said that the appeal arose out of a case in which it was alleged that negligent repairs were done to the car in September, 1824. The appellant (Mrs Ramsay) purchased the car in 1923 and used it for service purposes on the Akaroa run. There was trouble with the car, but this was found to have nothing to do with the engine. In September, 1924, the car was taken to the defendant's garage, and repaired and overhauled generally. Although the car had been overhauled generally, it continued to run unsatisfactorily, making a noise in the cylinders. It was taken back to the garage to be tightened up. In February of this year, the car was running so badly that it had to be taken off the run. As the defendant could not spare time to attend to it, Cameron Wall, another mechanic, attended to the repairs. The question to be decided on appeal was whether the Magistrate was justified in not finding that the gudgeon pin in the piston was reversed. His Honour: Does that justify the appellant in asking for a new car? Mr Thomas: She is only asking £2s, the cost of a new cylinder. His Honour: Why was the car driven for five months before this trouble was discovered ? Mr Thomas: The car was taken to the garage and the expert there told the driver that the trouble was piston "slap.” However, it was found later that the cylinders were scored and showed that the gudgeon pin had been put in negligently. The Magistrate said he believed that the appellant’s witnesses were honest, but mistaken. He did not find on facts. His Honour: You ask me to reverse the decision because the Magistrate found that the witnesses were honest but not to be believed? It is purely a Question of credibility, and that’s a question for the Magistrate. The thing against the appellant was that she I turned up live months later after the car had run 12,000. miles. Mr Gresson said that the putting in of a gudgeon pin reversed was so gross a piece of negligence for a mechanic that it would require strong evidence to prove (hat it had been done. If the pin had been reversed. the cylinder would have been scored much more than it was. There was a body of evidence to show that the work had not been negligently done, and on the other hand the defendant's witnesses? proved that the job was an excellent one. The car was one that had been worked hard and even the appellant’s witnesses admitted that the car had not been treated well. It had been in for repairs many times. His Honour said that the only appeal question was whether the Magistrate was justified in finding that the pin was not reversed. The Magistrate had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. "I am not satisfied that the Magistrate was not justified in saying that the appcallant’s witnesses were mistaken.” The appeal was dismissed with costs £7 7s.