HAMER V. HARTLEY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1078, 3 August 1912, Page 4

HAMER V. HARTLEY.

At the local S.M. Court on Wednesday, before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., Wm. Hamer jnr. proceeded against S. JHartley for 7s 6d for repairs to motor bicycle and the supply of new parts, including the supply and fitting of a new engine and carburetta. Mr R. Moore appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr H. R. Cooper, of Palmerston N., for the defendant. Defendant filed a counter-claim tor £25, amount of damages alleged by him to be incurred through plaintiff having undertaken to thoroughly overhaul defendant’s motor cycle and put it into good running order, and not having done so. As defendant admitted having received the goods and not having returned them, he was unable to dispute his liability for payment of the claim, and hearing of the case was therefore limited to defendant’s counter-claim.

The defendant, S. J. Hartley, gave evidence that in April, 1911, he had brought his motor cycle to the plaintiff and arranged with him to fit on a new engine and carburetta at the price of £l3 7s 6d. When he came and got the bicycle he found it would not go. He rode it for about a chain, and then it stopped. He had to push it all the way to Himatangi. The next day he took it to Broadbent, and bad to pay over to have it repaired. Cross-examined by Mr Moore, defendant stated that he had not asked the plaintiff (Hamer) to overhaul the bicycle, but only to obtain a new engine and carburetta, and fit them on. Could not say why he bad not brought the machine back to Hamer when it stopped within a chain from Hamer’s garage ; was alraid that would make matters worse. Had complained to Hamer several times about it. Some of the work in Broadbent’s account had nothing to do with Hamer’s work. The painting of the machine and tank by Broadbent was rendered necessary through the machine having got knocked about. The item for overhauling the engine was rendered necessary in consequence of Hamer’s work. , Admitted that a new engine should not need overhauling. Had not at any time promised that he would pay Hamer’s account. When he went to get delivery of the bicycle from Hamer he complained about several defects, including a broken stand. His machine had formerly been worked by an accumulator, and he got Broadbent to substitute this with a magneto, which made it work better. He had not asked Hamer to put on a magneto.

J. Golder gave evidence on behalt of the defendant. He had seen the stand of Hartley’s bicycle in Broadbent’s shop, and had secured it for the purpose of evidence against Hamer in a cas£ which he himself had intended to bring. He could not produce the stand because it had been burnt in the recent fire. The stand had been broken, and had been very badly repaired. Cross-examined, witness stated that he had not seen this stand in Hamer’s shop, but only in Broadbent’s. This concluded the evidence for the defendant. Mr Moore stated that the evidence given by the defendant did not support his counter-claim. It was clear there was no arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant that the plaintiff was to overhaul his motor bicycle. Defendant himself admitted that the only arrangement was to supply a new engine and carburetta. Defendant’s counter-claim stated that the alleged undertaking by the plaintiff had been given in July, but defendant’s own evidence showed there had been no dealings between the parties as late as July. Defendant’s evidence further showed that the trouble was apparently due to his machine being fitted with an accumulator, which had nothing to do with Hamer’s work. .