MOTOR-CAR REPAIRS.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 9, Issue 573, 8 October 1920, Page 2

MOTOR-CAR REPAIRS.

CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT. TWO CASES IN COURT. Two cases claiming payment of a-, counts for repairs to motor vehicle. were heard before Mr. A. Mowlen. S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yes terday. Messrs. Cooper and Curd (Mr. J G. Haddow) claimed from J. T. and 1 S. Morton and Co. the sum of £4 lb: 9d, being balance of amount owint for repairs to defendants' motor-cai. Mr. Haddow said that in this casi the work to be done by the plaintii. was limited.

Mr. Cooper stated that he had re ceived instructions from Mr. Mortoi to get his car from Paerata and dt certain repairs. The account wouk be sent out on February 1 of this year. The account was made up according to the usual custom of theii firm. Their charges for labour were worked on a basis laid down by the Board of Trade, i.e., exact cost of labour, plus 10 per cent, for overhead expenses, plus cost of material, ! plus 10 per cent, on the whole amount. , Plaintiff produced time-sheets showing that the head mechanic had spent 70 hours on the car, and that another man had spent 40 hours. Mr. Cooper, cross-examined by Mr. F. S. Morton, stated that they paid their head mechanic £6 9s 3d j>er week. His labour was charged for at the rate of 6s per hour. Mr. Morton: You paid the man £6 9s 3d a week, and received £l4 2s for the work he did? Yes. How much do you pay the other man? £1 10s per week. Therefore for a man you pay £1 10s you expect £4 14s? Yes. Do you consider this a reasonable charge? In this case, yes. Is it reasonable in any case? Yes. You have charged 6s an hour for a smith and a boy, how much do you pay them? £4 6s 2d for % the smith, and the boy £1 3s 6d. The chief mechanic for Messrs. Cooper and Curd said he had 29 years' experience at motor engineering. He had made the repairs to Mr. Morton's car. He had made the repairs as stipulated, and tested the car. » Cross-examined by Mr. Morton, he said that when he had finished the car the brakes were in good order. The 70 hours charged in his timesheet he put in on the car or else turning. The 70 hours was not ex-

cessive. Herbert Ferguson, mechanic, called by Mr. Morton, said he had taken delivery of Mr. Morton's car from Cooper and Curd. He had been told that the car was in good order. He had not run two miles before he had occasion to use the brakes. These would not hold at all. Mr. Morton said he objected to the amount charged in that the rates of profit upon the cost of the work done was at the rate of 133 1-3 per cent, on the mechanic's time, and that it was 212 per cent, on the second man's time. In any other class of business, he said, profits of that kind would not be tolerated. In reply Mr. Haddow said that Mr. Morton was overlooking the most important point in engineering work, viz.: the overhead charges such as wear and tear on machinery, and the cost of keeping fires burning all the while. The magistrate said that the only point upon which the account had been attacked was the time spent on the amount for the labour. He considered that it was a big bill, and he thought that the mechanics could not have been bustling very much to have taken 110 hours on the work. There was not, however, any evidence to show that the work was excessive or that the charges were excessive. It had been left to him to infer these matters. Under the circumstances he could not do otherwise than give judgment for the the plaintiff for the amount claimed, £4 19s 9d, and costs £2 13s.

TABOR V. KIDD. A claim for £26 7s 6d for work and labour done and material furnished was made by E. W. Tabor (Mr. J. G. Haddow), engineer and motor expert of Morrinsville, against C. Kidd, carrier, of Puni (Mr. Mahoney). In opening the case Mr. Haddow stated that the defendants motor lorry had been left for repair with the plaintiff in February, 1919. No objection had been made to the account until after plaintiff had left the district some nine months after. Plaintiff, in giving evidence, stated lie was a motor garage proprietor, and had formerly been in business in Pukekobe. Mr. Kidd's car had been repaired by him. The charges made were very reasonable, as he had allowed defendant 10 per cent. off. The motor lorry was in a very bad condition when it was brought to him. It had been overloaded. Mr. Kidd bad never complained of the work, but bad promised the amount. Cross-examined by Mr. Mahoney, the plaintiff stated' that th«> defendant had been a friend of his and had practically a free run of his workshop. He had had to take the engine down twice. On the first occasion they had overlooked a defect. He thought that he was quite justified in charging for the first occasion. Plaintiff was cross-examined at longth regarding the time spent on the vehicie and the amount of work done. , In answer -to counsel plaintiff said that Mr. Kidd did not on occasion complain of the work don». In answer to Mr. Haddow he said it was not by any means an uncommon thing to have to take a car down a second time. Mr. Kidd. examined by Mr. Mahoney, said the condition'of the car was just the same when he received it from plaintiff as when he took it to him. Ho was without the use of it for three weeks. He was quite prepared to pay Mr. Tabor what he considered a fair thing. He had offered a cheque for El 5, but this had been returned to him. He bad lost his contract through not having the vehicle, and he had to sell it. Cross-examined by Mr. Haddow, he stated that ho had not taken the car back to Mr. Tabor because be considered him incompetent, to deal with it. He had not been held up on the road because he bad no water or benzine in the car. He did not make a habit of leaving bis accounts unpaid until he was pressed for them. ' John Henry Heyworth, motor engineer, stated that he was formerly in Tabor's employ, and had worked on Kidd's motor lorry. He remembered taking the car down and examining the magnets. He did not devote much time to this job. When the lorry went out it was not running satisfactorily. He considered the charge of Els 10s for labour reasonable providing the car had been sent out satisfactorily. Cross-examined by Mr. Haddow, he said that the time on his time-sheet would be correct, but he did not think that he spent 40 hours on the car. ,

His Worship in summing up said he had dealt with many bills for motor repair work, and lie considered bill appeared to be perfectly \-«easonable. Judgment must go to-the plaintiff for the amount claimed, £26 7s 6d, and costs £6 16s.