WORK ON TRUCK

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20958, 10 November 1939, Page 4

WORK ON TRUCK

DISPUTE IN COURT MOTOR ENGINEER’S CLAIM QUESTION OF AUTHORITY A dispute involving the authority given to a motor-engineer to carry out repairs on a farm truck was heard before Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court, Hamilton, to-day. F. G. Peacock, a motorengineer, of Hamilton (Mr F. C. Henry) claimed £9 19 Id from W. D M. Glaister, solicitor, of Auckland, Defendant conducted his own defence. Plaintiff said in evidence that late on the afternoon of July 7, 1939, defendant called at his workshop and stated that his truck on a farm at Rotokauri needed an inspection. A mechanic was taken out to the farm on the next morning, a Saturday, and was a’ rent from the workshop for 3J hours. Defendant was told what work was necessary on the truck, and he gave authority for the work to be done. Defendant also said that any other work that was necessary should be carried out, and he stressed the fact that he wanted the vehicle put in good working order. The mechanic's time on the Saturday morning was charged at 7s an hour. The truck could not be removed to Hamilton on the Saturday morning, but was brought in later. It • was a \ery old model, and the work on it was slow and laborious. The vehicle was in poor order and a good deal of work, entailing about 27 hours’ working time, was done on it. Hector Thomas Fletcher, a motormechanic, gave evidence of having worked on the truck. Defendant told him to do any work that was necessary. Defendant’s Evidence Giving evidence, defendant said that the truck was bought in May for farm purposes, and, after being driven to the farm from Auckland it seemed to be doing its job satisfactorily. The vehicle became stuck in some peat ground and difficulty in starting the engine was experienced. Witness told Peacock to send a man out to get the vehicle going and he did not think, at the time, that any other work would be necessary. Fletcher and a man on the farm got the vehicle to go and Fletcher said the valves needed regrinding. In reply to a question he said the regrinding would cost £2. It was agreed that the truck should be repaired in the farm shed, but there was no authority for it to be removed to Hamilton. In addition, neither Fletcher nor Peacock was given permission for any other work to be done. Bought a Liability “When the defendant bought the truck he evidently bought a liability," said the magistrate, "for it seems as though there was something ‘fishy’ about it from the outset. The vehicle was evidently a 1918 model and had seen heavy service. The authority for the grinding of the valves was given to Fletcher, but the price of £2 might not be fair as the work on an out-of-date vehicle would be hard. Fletcher seamed impressed by defendant’s desire to have a good job made of the truck. The work that was done was necessary work and defendant will get value from it. I think that defendant should pay something, but 1 do not think plaintiff should recover all he claims. I will take off 30 per cent, of the labour cost and award plaintiff £6 8s 7d.”