COST OF REPAIRS

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 569, 28 June 1933, Page 6

COST OF REPAIRS

APPEAL TO COURT BENCH FINDS FOR PLAINTIFF IN ACTION BUT REDUCES CHARGES A dispute over repairs to a motor car occupied several hours of Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning at tbe Rotorua Magistrate's Court yesterday when Alexander McLean sued "F. B. K. McArthur for £15 5s, amount alleged to be due for worlc done. Mr. E. Roe appeared for McLean and Mr. G. McDowell for McArthur. Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., found for plaintift", but reduced the charges for the repairs. Alexander McLean gave evidence that McArthur had brought his car into the garage and on witness taking the car down he found that a good deal of work required doing. McArthur told him to do the work if it needed doing. McArthur took delivery o'f the car and at first there were no complaints until defendant said that he could not start the car. Witness recharged the battery and the car started all right. Later McArthur complained that for a mile he had used a gallon of benzine, but witness pointed out that this was not possible and there must be a leak. Later he complained that the car used a gallon for 13 miles. Witness then tested the car which showed that it did 25.2 miles to the gallon. Later McArthur said that the car was running well, but the benzine consumption was still high. When he got the account McArthur complained of the price of the work and said that he would not have had the work done if he had known the cost. Witness said that the car would have broken down if the work had not been done. On that occasion McAx-thur said that he would not pay without some adjustment. In December there had been no complaint from defendant about the value of the work done or that it was deiectjve. To Mr. McDowell: Mrs. McArthur was present at the first conversation and McArthur asked for a quote to overhaul his car. Witness said that he could not do this on a car he did not know, but the valves wanted doing and witness gave a quote for this work. An agreement was come to dismantle the car and then a quote was to be given to do the work. He, did not give a quote for the labour. W. R. McNaughton, formerly mechanic for Mr. McLean gave evidence of the work he had performed. James Bowring, who said that he had had 20 years' experience, corroborated the evidence of the last two witnesses. No Instructions . Mr. G. McDowell said that the dispute -was largely one of whether in.structions were given to do the work or not. Both Mr. and Mrs. McArthur denied giving any instruction, except for grinding the valves. He further contended that the work was unskilfully done and was excessively charged for. The defendant, F. B. K. McArthur, said he had a car which was not much used. He did not want to spend much money upon it. He knew the valves wanted grinding- and he gave McLean instructions to grind the valves, but expressly stipulated that no other work was to be done. He later became ill and took no interest in the car. He went into the garage and as far as he could see the worl: he had ordered was being done. Ho admitted agreeing that the connecting rod needed remetalling. He was quite certain that no general overhaul instructions were given. He thought that when the car was lying dismantled that that was for grinding the valves. When he received the car back he asked what he owed, McLean telling him that he would send the account in. He had no idea that the axle or wheels had been done up. He was staggered at the account when he got it. He saw McLean who admitted that he had wanted the valves done only. Witness told McLean that if the account was to be considered there would have to be a eonsiderable reduction. After the work had been done the car had never been the same, and he was disgustcd with it. The car was hardly used a. ■ d in order to make a trip to Auckland he had to get the valves ground in again. He was so disgusted with the job that he did not intend to take the car back into the garage. On oue occasion the car boiled and burnt him. Witness did complain to McLean t"1 at the benzine consumption had fali.n to somewhere about a mile to the g \1lon. Witness did not believe that McNaughton got 25.4 miles to the gallon. He had used the car just after McNaughton's test and the consumption was exhorbitant. Had McLean been given a free hand to overhaul the car he would have been inclined to fight the ease owing to the bad quality of the work. Mrs. F. L. McArthur, wife of defendant, gave evidence that slie was present when McLean and McArthur discussed the car and McArthur authorise McLean to grind the valves of the car and specially mentionc d that he was to do nothing else to the car.. The foreman for Bates' garage said he did the costing. Hj. had checked over the account and he estimated the labour charges at £C to £6 10s, reducing the account by 13 13s. He knew the type of car. Charles Graen, motor mechanie, gave evidence that the charge should be about £6 for labour for the woik. Amount Reduced The bench said that the claim was • disputed on two grounds, firstly that the work was done without authority and secondly, that the charges were excessive. It was admitted by the plaintiff that he was told not to do more than the valves, but contended that later he was instructed to do more. It was peculiar that defendant had admitted authorising the remetalling of the connecting rod. It appeared to him that most of the.defendant's story was fantastical and he had no doubt that defendant au-thox-ised the work. With regard to the over charge independent evidence was that the labour charges were excessive for this particular type of car. Had the time books been produced they might have

thought differently. However, it had been shown that duplication occurred. Judgment would be entered for £12, with solicitor's fee £2 12s, and costs £1, witnesses expenses £2 15s.