PUKEKOHE S.M. COURT.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 8, Issue 485, 27 June 1919, Page 4

PUKEKOHE S.M. COURT.

More Motor Cases. (Before Mr P. K.HuntS.M.) The adjourned case of Messrs Mills and Ooady against Mr I. Wymer, of Glenbrook, for £94 Is 7d for work done, goods sold and delivered, and moneys paid for articles supplied to a Rover motor car, was continued at the Pukekohe Magistrate's Court before Mr F. K. Hunt 8.M., on Thursday. Mr 0. 0. Mahoney appeared for plaintiffs, while Mr J. G. fladdow appeared for defendant. The case, which was commenced some weeks ago, arose out of the plaintiffs agreeing to overhaul a motor car, the property of defendant. Philip Boyle, a former partner in the firm, in evidence stated he went to defendant's place to have a look at a Rover car. When he saw the car it was m a disgraceful state. Eventually the car was brought to Pukekohe and overhauled, painted and upholstered. He remembered telling defendant that it might cost him £6O or £7O to have the work done, but never agreed to a contract for the repairs to the car. He thought there waß easily £BO worth of value in the work done. The firm spent a lot of time repairing old parts, because owing to the war they could not procure new parts. The whole of witness' evidence was lengthy and he went into matters concerning the various parts of the engine which were repaired. He was crossexamined at length by Mr Haddnw and during the course thereof said the price £6O or £7O given, was only a rough estimate. He did not know then what the actual cost would be. They experienced considerable difficulty iu disassembling the car owing to nuts being j rusted.

Mr Haddow contended that a contract was iu existence, and maintained that it had not Noon carried out or completed. John Joseph Coady, partner in the lira, said as far as he knew there was no contract, nor at any time did defendant ever suggest there was a contract. He thought the charges were reasonable. Wyrnei, junior, took the car to Auckland and when it returned, defendant expressed bitter dissatisfactipu about the clutch which was slipping. The clutch subsequently was adjusted. Defendant frequently came to the garage and expressed himself dissatisfied with the job. From what he could make out, there appeared nothing definitely wrong with the car. Whenever anything went wrong defendant came in and witness rectified it gratis, but he could never get any money out of him. Wymer made it known that he would only pay £6O for the repairs. The car was in a bad and dirty state when it entered the garage. Be had no opportunity of judging the age of the car. but could see it had

done a fair amount of work—harde work than what it was built for They had the car painted and upholstered, and supplied everything excepting labour. To Mr Haddow : It took about two weeks to paint a car. To His Worship: The job was a big one and took a long time. He tried to keep the cost down as low as possible. Boyle and he quarrelled over the price as Boyle suggested it should be £7O. Boyle was an excellent and clever man at his work. It appears that a report on the condition of the car was obtained from a Mr Spinx but Mr Mahoney submitted that as he had been subpseoned by defendant he would not agree to the report being put in. He contended that Mr Spinx exceeded his duties as he was not an upholsterer and furthermore was not a painter. The car had left the garage 14 months ago and as that space of time had elapsed it was impossible for any man to criticise work done so long ago. Harry Curd, of the firm of Messrs Cooper and Curd, motor engineers, of Pukekohe, said it all depended on the job turned out as to what the price would be. £lf> 10s he considered a very reasonable price for painting a motor car. Mr Haddow, for the defence, said that first of alFthe proceedings were not properlp laid, as the firm which did the work were not sueing. Secondly, he contended that a contract was fixed, and that the contract was not completed. He applied for a nonsuit.

Mr Mahoney objected, and said his clients were entitled to their money. His Worship would not grant a nonsuit, and the case proceeded. Defendant stated that Boyle gave him a price to put the car in thorough repair. Boyle looked over everything, and said he would make a thoroughly first-class job for £6O, to include paint, upholstering, repairs to engine, and a good second-hand one-man hood, providing defendant found a battery. He had found the battery, but they had spoiled it. Mr Boyle was starting in business in Fukekohe, and, as he was a respectable young man, he gave the car to him to do. The car was in the garage for five months. Witness' son took the car away. The lights and clutch were not in proper working order. Mr Coady told Mr Tabor to complete the job, and charSe the account to him (Coady.) Witness was present, and heard Ooady tell Tabor what to do. He told Coady his cheque was ready when the work was completed. The car was never handed over fully completed. The lights would not go properly yet. To Mr Mahoney: He had had the engine repeired a time or two before Mr Boyle attempted it. Witness never went near the garage until after the car was painted. He considered the painting a very " brummy " job. He expected the engine overhauled and any parts that were bad to be repaired, and the car handed back to him in thorough good order for £6O. Everything was included in the contract. After the car was handed to Tabor, for the purpose of repairing the lights, the lights would not work properly, and even now would not go properly. The whole job was anything from what he expected. The upholstering was also anything but neat.

To Mr Haddow: Before Messrs Mills and Coady gave up business, the car was in the garage about half a dozen times. James Francis Wymer, son of defendant, corroborated the evidence of his father. A. A. J. McDonald, formerly employed by Messrs Mills, Boyle and Coady, said Mr Boyle told him that a contract was in existence, and that the price would be £6O. Charles Kidd, also employed by the firm, corroborated the previous witness' evidence.

His Worship said, after the evidence for the defence, he was satisfied a contract was in existence, but he intended to allow something for extras. He therefore gave judgment for plaintiffs for £6l 2s 4d, together with costs amounting to £6 2s, each party to pay his own solicitor's costs.