REPAIRING A MOTOR CAR.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 August 1919, Page 7

REPAIRING A MOTOR CAR.

ALLEGED UNREASONABLE CHARGES. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. W. R. MeKean, S.M., Hubert 3. Wooldridge, motor garage proprietor, New Plymouth, sued Mary Ann Jill tea Crocker for the sum of £llß 12s 11) d in respect of the overhaul of defendant's motor-car. The sum of £Bl 12s (id was claimed for work aiid labor, and the balunce of £35 0s 4d was for materials supplied, of which details were given. Mr, A. H. Johnstone (for defendant) stated that £7O had been paid to plaintiff's solicitors in respect of the I claim, and defendant disputed any liability in excess of this.

Mr. Bennett (for plaintiff) agreed to this amount as if it had been paid into court and said' that the claim therefore resolved itself into one for the sum oi £4O 12a lOd. Plaintiff was prepared to allow £4 18s Od in respect to the overhaul of the electric lighting system, as defendant subsequently had to spend this sum in discovering a trouble. Plaintiff deposed that Mrs. Crocker brought the car to him and asked him to overhaul it and make a first class job of it regardless of cost. The value of the ear at the time it was brought to him would be from £250 to £3OO. The job was> carried out thoroughly, in accordance with instructions. When the account was rendered, showing £Bl 12s 6d as a lump sura for work and labor, the owner asked for a detailed account. Under his system of time-sheets it was very difficult to give details regarding the time put in on each portion of the job, but witness did his best to satisfy the owner in this way. Of the £Bl 12s 6d, the actual amount of wages was £3B lis 7d, and the allowance for overhead expenses (on a basis of 75 per cent, of wages) was £2B 18s Bd. In answer to Mr. Johnstone the witness said he had gained his experience in Australia. He denied that he was not in Australia more than a year and had all his experience in a small country town. Mrs. Crocker's car was in the garage for three months. Mrs. Crocker frequently rang up to inquire if the work was being done. He had not told her that the work would take a fortnight. Mr. Johnstono cross-examined at length regarding the detailed charges based on time which plaintiff had supplied. Harrv Jenkins, foreman mechanic for plaintiff, deposed to being in charge of the job on Mrs. Crocker's car. The time spent on the car, as set out on the memorandum, and the rate of wages paid to the respective employees, were correct.

Arthur Harrison, foreman mechanic for Spcdding and Stainton, Ltd., said he was engaged in motor car repair work. He had had experience of charging for repairs. His time for ordinary repair work was reckoned at 5s per hour, and for power work 7s or 7s Od, according to the class of work'. The charge sheet submitted in connection with the repair of Mrs. Crocker's car was a reasonable one —in fact he thought, for the amount of time spent on it, the job had come out very cheaply. To Mr. Johnstone: He had never had any experience of a system of charging in which 75 per cent, was added to wages And S3 1-3 per cent, to that figure again. He thought a charge of £s*odd for taking down the engine was a bit high. The worst part of the job was putting the engine back. He could not say what it ought to cost without seeing the car and engine. Many other questions were asked as to witness' estimate of the cost of certain repairs as itemised on the account, but he was unable to give a price without knowing the condition in which the various parts were. Ernest A. Lee, garage proprietor, Waitara, said his basis of charging for repairs wan the time spent on the work. His time was charged at 5s per hour. He thought if he had done the amount of work as set out in Mr. Wooldridge's account his charge would probably work out about the same.

Thomas G. Thompson, manager of the Criterion Garage, said he based his charges for repairs chiefly on the rate of wages paid. The price charged for labor would be twice the amount paid in wages.

In reply to Mr. Johnstone, witness said he had never had in his garage a car requiring such extensive repairs as those charged for by Mr. Wooldridge against Mrs. Crocker. e

Defendant in evidenco said she bought her Cadillac car in 1914. Tt had been twice overhauled before it went to plaintiff. It went there in September and remained for six weeks without anything being done. After many requests she got the car back, but it would not go, and she sent it to the Criterion, and was told that alio should make Wooldridge do his work properly. She never told Wooldridge to repair the car regardless of cost. When she got a bill for .-011(1 she declined to pay it, and asked for a detailed statement. In reply to Mr. Bennett, witness said she expected Wooldridge to do everything in reason that was necessary to put the car in good running' order. John Edward Nixon, mechanical engineer, New Plymouth, and Charles Herb'e>,t Johnston, motor garage proprietor, Waitara, gave evidence as to the method at the cost of certain repairs, and estimated that the charges made by plaintiff for repairing defendant's car were on the high: Side.

.Cecil Johnson, son-in-law of defendant. said he had driven the Cadillac ear in qiie,stion before it went to plaintiff for overhaul. Since then the car had only been in fair condition.

In reply to Mr. Bennett he saW that when the job. was.finished the self-starter anil carburetter ?ave trouble. He would not swear that the oar would riot go. His Worship reserved decision. x . v