SALE OF MOTOR LORRY

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10295, 2 June 1919, Page 6

SALE OF MOTOR LORRY

VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF. In the Supreme Court on Saturday further evidence and argument was heard in the case in which Magnus, Sanderson and Co.. Ltd., of Wellington, proceeded against H. E. MoEntee, W. .u. McEntee and P. L. Guillard, contractors, of Auckland. The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) was on the Bench. It was shown during the hearing that bn or about January 16th, 1919, H. E. McEntee, on behalf of the other defendants and himself, ordered from Magnus, Sanderson and Co. a Thorneycroft motor lorry for £650. Ho gave a signed order for the lorry, and if - was arranged that, the order should bo confirmed by telegram. On January 18th, plaintiff received the confirmatory telegram, which added: “Include brake, lamps, and hom; cheque following.” Eventually, however, the defendants refused to accept the lorry, and the plaintiffs therefore claimed £550, with the addition of £io, the price of the brake, lamps and horn fitted to tho lorry at the request of the defendants. After a retirement of throe hours tho jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for £565. In answering the questions put to it tho jury stated that the description or statement of the horse-power and the age and carrying capacity of , tho motor lorry was only the opinion of Mr Lawrence (plaintiff’s employee), and was not said ns n matter of fact. The representations as to the description of the lorry were, the jury found, rectified before the contraot was actually decided. Plaintiff was represented _ by Mr T. Nenre. and Mr A. W. Blair appeared for the defendants.