MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Waipa Post, Volume XII, Issue 664, 31 July 1917, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1917.

Before Mr E. Rawson, S.M. UNDEFENDED CLAIMS. Judgment was for plaintiff in the following civil claims by default : J. A. Hawkins v. P. Collyer, £6 ISs 10d, costs £1 10s 6d ; Te Awamutu Borough Council (Mr Downes) v. R. J. Atchison, £4 7s sd, cosits 12s ; Waipa County Council v. R. Whitton, costs Ss ; same v. P. J. Palmer, 12s 6d, costs Ss ; same v. C. A. Strid, £3 12s 3d, costs 15s ; T. Holden (Mr Downes) v. Kura, £3 Is sd, costs £2 11s ; same v. A. J. Gage, £2 11s 3d, costs 17s ; same v. Hipirini te Kata, 10s 6d, costs ISs ; same v. Kinohaku, £4 2s Id, costs £1 10s ; same v. Maki, 19s 3d, costs 18s ; same v. Tai Tumuhuia, £l3 5s lOd, costs £2 Ss 6d ; same v. H. Manu, 13s, costs 18s. JUDGMENT SUMMONS.

F. Bedford (Mr Downes) v. Whakarongotai Te Malia, £6 7s 6d. The defendant appeared and said he had no money—not even enough to pay an interpreter. He offered to pay 10s •monthly, and was examined as to his earnings. He attributed his present position to a long illness which had preceded his wife’s death. He was ordered to pay £8 3s 6d by monthly payments of £l. T. Holden (Mr Downes) v Enaki £ll 11s lOd. The defendant appeared and said lie had been kicked by a horse which made it haul to continue work though he admitted being in constant employment. Hi- remembered offering to pay £1 10s per month,and renewed this offer. He was ordered to pay £l2 2s 4d by monthly payments of 30s and in default sentenced to twelve days imprisonment. MOTOR CAR DISPUTE. This was a claim brought by E. J. Ralph Smith again t Williams and McHugh, motor engineers of Te Awamutu for £73 18s lOd resulting from an alleged breach of contract*

The statement of the claim set out that during the month of November defendants were engaged to overhaul a Paige motor car and for the supply of new parts where necessary and for complete sets of new gears for a total sum of £55. It was made known to the defendants, that, when so over hauled and relitted, the car was to bo used for the purpose of a journey to Wellington. On January 29th (the car was handed over as being in good running order and repair, whereas it is now claimed it had not been completely overhauled, or overhauled at all, and was not in good running order. On the commencement of .the journey to Wellington the car proved unfit for use and had to be left at Te Kuiti for repair. After waiting for some days plaintiff found that the car could not be repaired in time, and he was therefore compelled to hire another car at a cost of £44, being 11 days’ hire at £4 per day. A further sum of £9 8s was paid for the partial overhaul of the car at Te Kuiti and it is estimated that the cost of completing the repairs will be £lO. Wherefore it is claimed: Car hire £44, cost of partial overhaul £9 Bs, cost of completing the repairs and restoring it to the condition in which defendant contracted to deliver it £lO. A further claim was for £lO 10s, being the value of ten cases of benzine stored by defendants and wrongfully used by them —a total of £73 18s lOd. Mr G. P. Finlay appeared for the plaintiff, the defendant being represented by Mr E. A. Cox.

E. J. R. Smith said defendant had acquainted him of the fact that a second-hand Paige car was for sale, and advised him to purchase it. As witness had no knowledge of motor cars he replied that if defendant could get the car cheap and would guarantee to put it in order, he would be prepared to buy it. An undertaking was reached for its purchase and repair, the whole of the business being entrusted to defendant as an expert. It was arranged that if the purchase of the car, its complete overhaul including a new set of tyres, would not exceed £l5O, he would see the owner and try and make the bargain. The defendant Williams advised that the car was well worth the expense to put it in order, and the owner was then approached and offered £7O and ithe purchase was made. Witness would never have made this purchase without the advice of the defendant and there was the complete understanding .that the total cost, including all repairs was not to exceed £lsOl He made no mention of an intention to journey to Wellington before he agreed to have the repairs done. Examining counsel —Well that ends the claim for £44.

Continuing, witness said when the car was delivered a certificate was given by him saying that it was in good order and repair, an employee signing this certificate of his behalf. This certificate was torn up then and there because a similar document was not given by the defendants and two separate certificates were subsequently drawn up and given between the parties. A cheque to cover the cost of repairs and extras, totalling £SO i'ss (Id, was immediately pahl. He had positively no knowledge of motor cars, and depended thoroughly on the defendant to give a fair deal, and had made no inspeeUon of the work before giving the certificate. It was on defendant's suggestion that Porter was engaged to drive through to Wellington. Resuming after the luncheon adjournment plaintiff’s counsel intimated that one of the chief witnesses had not arrived from Te Kuiti and a^ adjournment of the case was asked for, excepting in resßJt to that portion of the claim relSug to the wrongful use of benzine. The plaintiff said the benzine was ordered and stored at defendant’s garage and when he asked lor delivery he was advised that three or four cases had been used in cleaning and testing the car. In February lie asked for the benzine and was told there were only four or six cases left, so lie demanded that the shortage be made good or the value of the ten cases be refunded. He had been

! told by McHugh that at least one

case had been sold, but had never actually sent to take delivery of his goods. Under cross-examination he saiid it was correct that he had asked defendants to store the benzine as a favour, the understanding being that lie could draw supplies from time to time as required. The benzine used at the start of the trip to Wellington was taken from the garage—one case thus being accounted for, Defendant had never said he could have the benzine when he liked to send for it; he expected defendant to send the benzine to him or else pay for it. It was true that after the car had been repaired defendant had taken witness to Hamilton and Cambridge, and to and from his farm on several occasions but he had paid for the hire of his own car, the charge for benzine and the driver’s time. These trips were taken to test the reliability of the car, but it almost invariably happened that they had a breakdown, it was a condition in the original agreement that witness be taught to drive the car. It was true that on one occasion he had made a mistake in changing gears though it was not correct to say he had tried to change from the low gear to the high gear, having his foot on the accellerator and on the clutch, and in the end gone into the reserve. He did make a mistake by attempting to change too soon on one occasion, and had instructed Williams to inspect th'e gear box which McHugh said had not been done. When he took the car over, Williams brought it round and said it was all right; they did not go for a trial run that day. He had never sent for the benzine, but had sent in an account claiming payment for its value and he had never heard anything further.

At this stage the case was adjourned until the next sitting of the court by arrangement between the parties.