DISPUTE ABOUT A CAR.

Taihape Daily Times, 17 April 1919, Page 3

DISPUTE ABOUT A CAR.

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS. At. the Magistrate's Court at Okakune on Friday last, before Mr J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., William Bosley (Ohjakune) claimed from Edlin Etevencaux and Co. (Taihape) £2OO for loss allegedly sustained by the purchase of a. motor car at (lie price of £305 from defendants. Mr Harris appeared for tlii? plaintiff and Mr Hussey (Wanganui) for defendants. The case wits a lengthy one, occupying the whole day, and the evidence was purely of a technical nature as to the condition of the car at the time it was purchased, and subsequently. The case outlined for the plaintiff, by Mr Harris, was that the car was sold to bim as a new car which had done a little demonstrating. The whole of the evidence for plaintiff went to show that the car had seen considerable wear, and had been in use for some time. Mr Hussey called evidence for the defence to show that the car was not sold as a new car. though it had been used for a month for demonstrating. He relied also on the fact that .although the plaintiff had been dissatisfied with the car he had retained possession cf it, and had not objected to it for the reason as he alleged that it was a second-hand. car.

Wh. Bosley, plaintiff, deposed that in July of last year lie had purchased the car for £305. It was insured for £2OO and during the whole time ho had had it, it was a source of trouble arid expense. He had complained of the state of the car to defendants, and that it was not what they had represented it to be to him. Towards the end of the year it again broke down after many previous similar experiences, and he left it on the side of the road, where it took fii-o and was burned. The sum of £.1.80 insurance wias paid, which wont to his guarantors.

The following witnesses gave evidence for plaintiff as to the state of the car: Rev. F. Menard, T. a. Burrell (electrical engineer). H. G. Gage (engineer, and manager for Collett and J Son). G. Sargent (ironmonger and motor mechanic), and A. Fantham (motor mechanic, Raetihi). For the defence, James Eteveneaux and J. Smith (defendants) were called, and deposed as to the- sale and subsequent transactions with the plaintiff. His Worship held the evidence for the defence was sustained, inasmuch as that plaintiff had not shown his dissatisfaction with the car, although several of his own witnesses had pointed out to him that they did not believe it to be a new ear. He had still retained possession of it, .and judgment would be for the defendants.— Ohakune Times.