TROUBLE OVER TRUCK.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5187, 5 October 1927, Page 2

TROUBLE OVER TRUCK.

GARAGE SUES FOR PAYMENT.

JUDGMENT FOR AMENDED CLAIM.

At the Paeroa Magistrate’s Court, before Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., Messrs W. Fleming and Son, Ltd., motor ■engineers (Mr C. N. O’Neill), claimed the; sum of £lO 18s 2d from Michael Quane, being an amount alleged to be due for repairs executed and extras | and benzine supplied to April of this

year. ; A portion of the amount claimed was admitted by defendant, but he took exception to several items charged for. In outlining the case Mr O’Neill said that the claim was for goods supplied and work done on a motor lorry owned by defendant. On the application of defendant the Court ■liad previously adjourned the case for one month to enable a settlement to be arrived at. However, defendant had not reached any compromise, and it would be necessary to proceed with the establishment of the claim. A portion of the amount claimed was for teaching defendant to drive the truck and enable; him to obtain his certificate.

John J. Fleming, one of the firm of W. Fleming and Son, Ltd., said that defendant had had a considerable amount of work done on the truck at various, times. There had never been any arrangement to charge a portion of the cost to Jakob Bertelsen. Witness detailed the system adopted for charging goods sold between the garage and the. retail department, and also th© dockets used in connection with repair work done in the garage. The amount claimed also* included cost of benzine and oil supplied to defendant.

To Mr Quane witness said he did not remember if defendant, had actually taken the truck into the garage himself.

Claude Handley, garage foreman, said he was familiar with the truck. Instructions for repairs, etc., had been given by defendant and Be.rtelsen. The work dockets (produced) were for repairs and materials actually done or supplied. The fee for teaching defendant to drive was arranged at 30s. To the Bench witness s,aid that he had made arrangements to give Quane the driving lessons, and in his opinionQuane was qualified to drive), but had not bothered to take out his driving license.

In evidence Michael Quane disputed a number of the items; charged by th© plaintiffs. He contended that there had been an overcharge for the driving lessons. One of the batteries charged for had been put in by Handley so that he could start the engine. more easily. He had not <"rdared or received the second battery. The truck had been taken to the plaintiffs by Bertelsen, and without the authority of witness. *

The Bemch pointed out that defendant was liable for the account unless it Could be proved that some other arrangement had existed. Continuing, Quane said that an amount of £2 10s charged in April was incorrect as the truck was in another garage at that time. The mgistrate advised defendant that the best cou~se for him to follow would be to consult, a solicitor and receive advice with reference to suing Bertelsen for his sihare of the garage- expenses and for the use of the truck.

The; magistrate said he would allow two items, amounting to 19s 6d, and give judgment for the. balance, £9 19s Bd, with Court costs, amounting to £3 ss.