REPAIRS TO MOTOR CAR.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4625, 14 November 1923, Page 2

REPAIRS TO MOTOR CAR.

CLAIM AND 1 CASE AT PAEROA COURT. At the Magistrate’s Court, Paeroa, on Monday, before Mr- J, H. Salmon, S.M., the Paeroa Engineering Co, Ltd. (Mr C. N. O’Neill), claimed from H, F. Housler (MY J. L. Hanna) £l7 16s 4d for materials furnished and work and labour done by them for defendant in repairing his motor-car in June. A counterclaim was lodged by de- ' fendant stating that the repairs had not been satisfactory and he had been put to further expense in having the car put in good order. The amount counterclaimed for was. £5O, made up of £l3 for repairs, £2O for loss of use of the car, and £l7 as general damages. Costs of the action were also asked for. Mr C. N. O'Neill asked that the claim should be taken separately from the counterclaim. a i James T. Brown, manager of Paeroa Engineering Co., sworn, said that defendant had taken his car to the shop early in June. No contract had been made.. The cost was mated at from £8 to £l4. Defendant; remarked that plaintiff’s foreman; was a real good man and he left his car. The car was left to the foreman, who was a thoroughly reliable mechanic, and one who could*' be trusted. The day’s work and time we r e handed in to the office by each employee daily. Defendant’s account was made up from the time-sheets To the best of his knowledge the work on the car and the materials supplied were correct. He was confident that the charges were substantially correct. Daily timesheets were rendered on all occasions. No definite quotie had been given when the car was brought to the shop, and he considered that the charges as shown were not unduly large. There had been no dispute over the amount It was the principle and not the money thati he was anxious about, and he was so satisfied thnt the work had been done that he . world rather make defendant a gift of the work and materials than have him dissatisfied; Cross-examined by Mr Hanna witness said that every detail was not shewn by the workmen because a lot of detail work was necessary which came under a general heading of ‘‘taking down an engine.” He then detailed the system of cleaning a Ford engine after taking it down. The crank case was visible, and easily cleaned. Witness said that he personally had cleaned the oil fqed pipe. The car was thoroughly tested, and the engine run for over, an hour, and it vais found to he quite correct. Had the oil pipe been blocked the lack of oil would have been apparent, as the engine would not have functioned properly. He was positive that the fly wheel was taken off and the crank--shaft taken out, and everything possible was cleaned. There was certainly a slight ignition "knock.” He' did not know of any remarks that ' had been made by his staff that were in any way detrimental to the work done or of the car. The day the defendant took the car was .very wet. It would be necessary, to travel on second gear for about six miles, and that in itself was a gruelling test for any car, especially a recently overhauled engine. An offer had been made to have the car returned from Netherton to his garage to-be attended .to/ He had told defendant that if he wanted another mechanic to attend. to his car he would have to engage him at his own expense and responsibility. To Mr O’Neill, plaintiff said that he could not allow the foreman to go to Netherton because he w'as busy on the erection of milking machines and fulfilling contracts. No good purpose could have been served by allowing the foreman to go to Netherton, because he would have had to work at a disadvantage; hence the offer to have the car brought back to the garage. George O. Davidson, foreman engineer for the Paeroa Engineering Co., said that he knew the car belonging to defendant. He described the system of time-sheets in use in the garage, and said he did not assist in any way with making out-'the ac-v, counts. He could swear to the flywheel being taken off and the oil pipe cleaned. The car was tested for faults by him on the road. He found a fault in the ignition, but the oil feed was satisfactory.. He had been some 20 years engaged on general engineering and. motor-car repair work- . Cross-examined by Mr Hanna witness’ said that, he was' of the opinion that the piece of metal found in the oil pipe (produced) was a portion of a bearing. He was positive that the piece of metal had not been left in the engine crank case or oil pipe, and that the connecting rods were in order. To Mr O’Neill: The car would only run about a mile if the oil pipe ha-1 been blocked, and during the test the car had been run five or six miles. The car could not go if the steel point of the ignition was missing. To His Worship witness said that the car was a 1914 model Ford car. " It had come from: Netherton, and was well worn. He had not done the whole of the work. He and McClinchy had been the last to work on the assembling of the engine into the chassis. Some 80 hours had been expended on the car. THE DEFENCE. J. Harms, farmer, Netherton, sworn, said that defendant put his car in a shed on his (witness) paddock on June 26 and it had not been taken out until Benson and McClinchy went to Netherton. The shed door was locked and defendant held the key. The car was towed into Paeroa. Samuel T. Benson, motor mechanic, said he remembered going to Netherton for defendant’s car. He started the car and found a groaning nofee coming from the front of the engine and a humping sound from the rear. He found the contact point was missing from the magneto, and tould not find it. When in the garage he found it sticking to one of the magnets. Messrs R. McClinchy, J, Hubbard, F*

Bi as it *

Wilson, and the defendant were present when the point -was found. He found the oil pipe full of oil when it ' should have been empty. He also ; found .two knots of cord, a small piece of waste, and other foreign matter In the opinion of witness it was about three or four years since the fly-wheel and magneto had been taken down. They were both very dirty, having a scum deposit to the extent of a sixteenth of an inch deep on the magnets, and traces of worn metal ;.On removing the oil pipe a kink was found in it, causing a stoppage, which -had been caused by a piece of bearing metal lodging inside the pipe. If nine pints of oil were put ip when the engine was assembled there would oe no need for the oil pipe to function -for a. while as the oil would be light enough. As soon as the oil got down to a normal level the heed of the oil pipe would soon be felt. About- 20 or 30 miles for the car in question could de done before the : oil reached its normal level. He could not trace where the piece of bearing had come from. The oil reservoir was dirty and carbonised, as also were the pistons. The crank case was dirty with oil from the engine, and he did not think that condition possible if the engine had been taken down in June last. Three connecting rods had been fitted in the reverse direction to number one, and the big end of the latter was filed off the square, causing the small end to press against the cylinder cheek, which would throw the piston put of time. The main bearings were considerably slack and dull, §o witness dismantled the whole '.engine, and came to the conclusion that the bearings had not been touch ed for at least two or three years. The main bearing could not be successfully attended to without the removal of the fly-wheel. Witness-said that plaintiff had asked him if he was going to take up the work, and when he received a reply in the affirmative plaintiff said that he felt sure that there was no seirous fault with the engine, but that probably defendant had driven the car a long distance in second gear. Cross-examined by Mr O’Neill witness said that he had actually got the car to run without the point being in place. The engine had been turned over a couple of times in the gai - age before the engine was taken .to pieces. There was no part in the engine which the cord could come from. Nine pints of oil would just reach the level of the plate. ,■ t Robert L. McCllnchy, motor, mechanic; Paeroa, said that he was 20 years of age, and had .worked for two years with the plaintiff firm but was now in partnership with the previous witness. He had. assisted in the work of ovrehauling defendant’s car in plaintiff’s garage. He was present when the car was brought into his garage. He was of the opinion that the work done by the plaintiff firm was very unsatisfactory. John Hubbard, engineer, Paeroa, said that he inspected the car at Benson and McClinchy’s garage. , > Crosfe-examined -by Mr O’Neill witness said that the fluff found on the magnet points was probably a piece of packing. He was not prepared to . say that there was oil slime on the fly-wheel. The oil pipe might have been dented by a mechanic letting a spanner slip, but he had no idea how the dent in that particular pipe had occurred. Henry B. Housler, apairist, Netherton, said that he had instructed the Paeroa Engineering Co. to overhaul the engine in his car at a cost of approximately £B. He drove the car home again on June 26; Near >the Puke bridge he noticed that the engine was running hot and the cylinders were dry of oil, and he had to "oil zhe engine by hand three times on the way .home. Half the journey had been done on low gear. On arrival at Netherton the car was put in a shed on Harms’ property and not taken out again. He wrote to the plaintiff firm and stated the. trouble he had experienced in getting home. On *.■ July 13 he saw Mr Brown, who said that if the car was still unsatisfactory the firm would put it in order free of charge provided the faults were caused by failure on the part of the firm.. Mr Brown, junr., went to Netherton on July 16 and looked at •the car, taking the magnetto off and replacing it but the running of the car was no better. On August 14 he — asked plaintiff to send a mechanic cut to Netherton to adjust the engine under his supervision. Plaintiff could not send a man out, but they offered to pay the cost of towing the car back to the garage in Paeroa. Defendant said he had no faith in the plaintiff, firm, and would not let' them have the car again. He was present when the engine was taken down 2n Benson and McClinchy’s garage, and said that the evidence given by the previous witnesses was correct To His Worship defendant said that -• when he first took his car to plaintiff the engine had a knock in it, and n the transmission system seemed at fault. He had always done his own repairs. The car was bought second hand, and had been driven for six years on the Netherton roads. Tn his address Mr Hanna said that? the main bearings were faulty, that the pole piece could not have been in place, that the oil pipe was not functioning properly, and that the engine was dirty. The therefore asked that his client be allowed a substantion reduction of the amount charged - for repairs. and that he be awarded damages for loss pf time and expenses in connection with not having the car for his work. s Mr O’Neill said that he would like to .stress the evidence given by Mr Hubbard, who' was the least inter- ‘ ested witness, and asked the Magis- . trate to consider several points disclosed by Hubbard which Mr O’Neill considered were strongly in favour of his client. He was of the opinion that the work had been conscientiously carried out by the plaintiff firm, and every reasonable precaution had been taken .to give satisfaction. De- , fendant had used his best endeavours , to prove that plaintiff had shown negligence and incompetence, but the evidence, he submitted, had not adduced those facts. Tn summing up, His Worship said that in cases of that sort the court

was usually bewildered by the difficulty in the expert evidence. After viewing the evidence in planitiff’s case His Worship said that tihe firm was entitled to the amount of material supplied (£4 13s Id), with court costs £3 12s, but the amount of the claim for labour (£l3) could not be allowed to stand on the face of the evidence tendered. Speaking of the counterclaim the Magistrate said that from the evidence he was of the opinion that defendant was entitled to judgment for the amount of Benson and McClinchy’s account for repairs done to the car. Judgment would therefore be given for £l3, with costs £7 18s. With regard to the claim for loss of time and general damages, the Magistrate held that owing to defendant’s, most unreasonable conduct he was not entitled to either special or general damages.