SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 61, 5 December 1917, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

A MOTOR TRANSACTION

CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM

His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking and a special jury of twelve heard yestorday a case in which the parties were Chipman Ltd. and John Jidward Fitzgerald, motor importer, or Wellington. Chipman, Ltd., who are motor manufacturers' agents, claimed from Fitzgerald £2394 17s. Bd., as due upon Cole cars and Burford motor wagons supplied to the latter. Fitzgerald counter-claimed for £5750 from the plaintiffs, and denied that anything was owing by him, since (as ho alleged) lie was entitled to damages upon the following grounds: The plaintiffs had, ho said, delivered only nine Cole cars and one Burford truck contracted to>, and had failed to deliver the remaining sixteen cars and eight trucks mentioned .in the agreement they had entered into. Owing to the default of the plaintiffs, serious delays had taken place in the delivery of three out of the nine Cole cars delivered. Fitzgerald asked the Court to awardhim damages as follows: For loss of estimated profit on tho sale of sixteen Cole cars not delivered, £3200; for loss of estimated profits on eight Burford trucks not delivered, £2000; for loss of re-sale of two Cole cars owing to late delivery by Chipman Ltd., £400; for loss of profit on a Cole car contracted to be resold by him, £200; loss £50, the profit on another car purohased by him and sold in lieu of the Cole car.

Sir John Findlay, K.C., and Mr. D. R. Hoggard appeared for Chipman Ltd., and Mr. A. W. Blair for Fitzgerald.

The following jury was empanelled: ;—Stanton Harconrt (foreman), Frederick Carter, Charles Stuart, Harry Payne, George Edwin Mathieson, Sydney George Nathan, Gilbert Steel Hill, James Alexander Stewart, John Benjamin Palmer, William Clayton, Charles Hain, and John M'Eldowney. The hearing was not concluded-when the Court rose.

NEW TRIAL REFUSED. In a case heard some time \ago,' Clarkson's Motors Ltd'. maHe a claim for about £143 against Charles Henry Barrington, to whom a "Pathfinder" car had been supplied on the hirepurchase system. The plaintiffs seized the car for non-payment by Barrington of instalments duo. Barrington made a counter-claim for £65 odd. The Court awarded the plaintiffe the amount of their claim, less the amount of the counter-claim. Then the defendant applied for a new trial of the plaintiff's claim, on the ground that when the car was seized tho right to. seize had not accrued. His Honour held yesterday that the right had accrued, and he dismissed the motion, with costs against Barrington. Mr. T. Young appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. M. Myers for the defendant.