SALE OF MOTOR LORRY

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10293, 30 May 1919, Page 3

SALE OF MOTOR LORRY

WAS THERE • MISREPRESENTA-

TION?

Yesterday, in the Supreme Court, a commencement was made with -the hearing of civil actions, the Chief Justice (Sir Rolbert Stout) presiding. Hie case was that in' which Magnus, Sanderson and Co:,' Ltd., of Wellington, proceeded against ±L r iC. McEhtee,' W. H. iVLcJiintee, and PL. GuiHara,:.contractors,' of Auciriand. i\lr T. .Neave represented the plaintiff company, and Mr A'. \V.. Blair. appeared for the defendants.

It was set xmt that on or about January t lath; lyii), H. E. -Mcliintee; on behalf of the other defendants and himself, ordered from Magnus, Sanderson and Co. a l'horneycroft motor lorry for £550. He gave' a signed order for the lorry, and it was arranged, that the order should be confirmed by telegram.- -On..January 18th, • plaintiff received the confirmatory telegram, which added; ,':lncmde brake,' iamps, and horn; cheque,following." Eventually, however, the defendants refused to accept the lorry, and the plainMifs therciore' claimed £560,' with the 'addition of £4O, the price of the brake, tamps ami horn fitted, to the lorry at Mie request .of the defendants. .... It was- aumitted for the defence that the lorry'was ordered, but, defendants contended, "on' the following understandings':" fa) 'l'hat the lorry was 40-40-'hoise-power; (>) thabt-it had been on the roaa for seven years; (c) that it was in good working order, and would carry five or six tons without (d) that the lorry had not been aoused, and was prder; (e) that .the. ; lorry had S-inch tyres, it was alleged that each of these representations was untrue. Defendants also claimed that tho-plain-titt's' servants'knew the'/nature' of the work for which required, and "" represented that it was suitable for such work. The confirmatory telegram was sent in reliance on the representations made. With reference U) tho claim for, £4O, the defendants BU'bmitle'd : that the price .quoted for fitting the. braKe was iiJ and the lamps £O, and on tli.s quotation "the work was ordered.

'there was ilso •» counter-claim by defendants for £100,,. of .which £2o was the deposit,jnud on the lorry, and £75 .'was claimed for cost and ex: penso incurred by the defendants in two fruitless visitii to Wellington. " In tho 'course of his opening address, Mr Blair stated that the plaintiffs did not.>-correctly .-.describe- the..lorry, and the onus of proof was, therefore, on the'defendants. Apart from tho fact that oilo of. the cylinders was cracked, it had come to the knowledge of the defendants that the lorry had been built, up out of, two. cars. There were other features (which counsel deticribed) that would illustrate to tne jury that '.he lorry was not in good working order," and * not 'suitable''for the work, required of it.

After several 'witnesses had been examined,' the case was adjourned till this morning. -