LAWSUIT OVER A CAR

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1048, 12 August 1930, Page 10

LAWSUIT OVER A CAR

FARMER SUES MOTOR FIRM FOR DAMAGES NEW OR DEMONSTRATED? Claiming that he had been sold a demonstrated ear on the representation that the vehicle was new. a Katikati farmer, Colin Godfrey Crawford, sued Edward Valentine Sharp and Innes George Shaw, of S. and S. Motors, Te Puke, for £143 damages in an action heard by Mr. Justice Smith in the Supremo Court today. Mr. McDougall appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Cooney for the defendants.

According to the claim, an arrangement was made with a representative of S. and S. Motors to sell plaintiff a demonstrated car, and to take Crawford’s car for £l3O as part payment. On February 19, it was stated that an agreement was entered into by plaintiff with a member of S. and S. Motors to purchase a new car, and to trade in his own car for £122 10s. The car was delivered bv S. and S. Motors a week later, and on March 10, after completing payments, plaintiff claimed he had obtained expert opinion to the effect that the car had been driven from 6,000 to 8,000 miles. On complaining to defendants, Crawford claimed that S. and S. Motors admitted that a demonstration car had been delivered to him, but stated that the price of the new car had been reduced £22 10s.

The defence denied that the allegations imputing substitution and deceit, or having made any representation that the car had never been driven. At the Katikati Show, on February 19, according to plaintiff’s evidence, he met one of the members of the S. and S. Motors and agreed to purchase a new car, similar to one on exhibition, at £ 360, the defendant firm to take witness's ear for £122 10s. The new car was delivered a week later, but it remained in the shed for three weeks. He had driven the car to Te Puke to register it, and made the deposit payment at the same time, and also signed 18 promissory notes, the interest rate 8 per cent. “NOT FAIR DEAL”

A fortnight later, he formed the opinion that he had not been given a fair deal, and on inspecting the tread of the tyres, he became suspicious. The mileage on the speedometer was very small and he noticed certain marks on the bodywork which indicated, he thought, that the car had ben damaged. Under cross-examination. witness said that after he returned from Katikati to Te Puke the speedometer connecting rod became disconnected. He at first denied that he had ever discussed with his brother the evidence to be given and then confessed that he had done so. He refuted the suggestion that he was aware when the car war delivered that it was the one which he had inspected at the show. During questioning by Mr. Cooney, counsel suggested that witness was not telling the truth. “I do my best to tell the truth, ’* replied witness. “I might make an occasional blunder, but that is probably due to lack of education.”

SeveraJ, times during the crossexamiation the witness was forced to change statements he had previously made.

He could not explain why. the registration papers of the car he traded in did not show that it was second-hand when he bought it in 1926 for £225. He had received £122 for this car on the trade-in. He agreed the new car he had bought had given satisfaction to date. * (Proceeding.)