MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Waikato Times, Volume 109, Issue 18286, 25 March 1931, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

PURCHASE OF CAR.

ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. A claim for £55, the difference between the represented and actual value of a car purchased by him from defendant was brought by James Wills, mail contractor, against H. R. Beaver, in the Hamilton Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M. A further amount of £ll 9s lid for repairs entailed was claimed. Plaintiff was represented by Mr A. L. Tompkins and defendant by Mr W. J. King. Jack Hansford Muir, taxi driver said that while in the employ of Ebbett A'lotors, he remembered Wills taking delivery of the car on December 31. Witness drove the car on that date and it was his opinion that, the brakes were defective. The life of a cheap American car for business use, he • estimated at between sixty and seventy thousand miles. In answer to Mr King, witness stated that he <vas twenty years of age. On the trip-* to Auckland and back just after the.- car was purchased, the car did not pull too well on the hills. William George Johnson , an employee of Wills, said that while boarding with ■ defendant in Claudelands, he went around with Beaver on his Horsham Downs Mail run on various occasions. The run at the time was about 45 miles. The speedometer was altered in his presence about the end of May. The speedometer at the time was showing about 20,000 miles and it was shifted hack to nothing. Witness mentioned nothing to Wills about this until a short time ago. Cross-examined, witness said he had known the car for some time and had told Wills, at the time of the purchase that it was worth the amount agreed upon, Beaver had told him prior to the sale that the brakes of the car would need re-lining. Witness denied that he had driven the car for about five miles with the brakes on, on one occasion. The car gave no trouble on the trip to Auckland on Christmas Eve. The brakes, however, were not in perfect order. W. G. A. Williams, foreman in charge of the repair branch of the Ford Sales, who effected certain repairs to the car, said that the condition of the brakes was such that the drums were worn practically right through. For commercial purposes the life of a car of the description of the one in dispute would be approximately 80,000 miles. With replacements, the life of the car would be extended a similar period. Mr King in opening for the defence submitted that on plaintiff's own evidence he must be non-suited. At the first and subsequent interviews Wills agreed to buy the car provided financial arrangements could be made. This was before the car had been inspected and the speedometer noted. Mr King submitted that both men were mail contractors and knew each other and plaintiff was in a position to know’ the life of the car in question. With regard to the second claim it was held by plaintiff that the brakes of the car were not in good running order. If such were the case it was curious that no attempt had been made to remedy the defect until some weeks after. Both Muir and Johnson had stated that the car had performed quite well on the trip to Auckland. Mr King accordingly asked that plaintiff be nonsuited.

Mr Tompkins pointed out that as he had slill a further witness to call, his client, could not be nonsuited at this stage. Tho case was adjourned to permit of the other witness for plaintiff being called.