STORAGE OF A MOTOR-CAR

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 174, 12 April 1918, Page 4

STORAGE OF A MOTOR-CAR

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. In the Magistrate's Court yesterday Mr. W. G. fiiddel), S.M., delivered reserved judgment in the case in which Dorcas E. 'Herbert, formerly of Eketaliuna, wife of Lioutcnaiit-Colouel Herbert, for whom Mr. T. M. Page- appeared, proceeded against John E. Fitzgerald, motor garage proprietor, Wellington, represented by Mr. A. W. BJair, to' recover £105 damages alleged to have been caused to plaintiff's Motor-car through the neglect of , de-. Cendant in omitting to provide proper storage for such car after he had undertaken to store the same, and plaintiff further claimed delivery of the said car alleged to have been wrongfully detained by defendant, or tho value of tho car, £70. On April 21, 1917, defendant was advised by letter that plaintiff's motor-car was tor sale, and would be sent to Wellington to defendnnt for that purpose. On May 2 .defendant wrote plaintiff that the car had arrived, and was in bad condition. Defendant denied that auy arrangement had ken made about repairs, but the Magistrate held that it was clear, from the evidence that defendant accepted the. car for sale, and stored it in Ms premises for somo weeks. Defendant then sent the car to the City Garage and Motor Works for sterago, and in January, 1918, paid £7 10s. for the storage for a period of fivo months. Defendant made this arrangement without consulting plaintiff's agent.. "The position, then, was that defendant had taken charge of plaintiff's motor-car for tho purposes of sale, and had stored it pending tho receipt of instructions about repairs, upon which there is a conflict of evidence." Defendant introduced one Wrigley as a'prospective buyer of tho car, and suggested £175 as its prico. Plaintiff and Wrigley inspected the car, and both stated that it had the appearance of haviug been exposed to the weather for a considerable time, and Wrigley estimated that it would take £105 to put the car in order. Eventually tho car was sold to Wrigley for £70. Plaintiff claimed £70 damages for wrongful detention of the car, but having disposed of it before commencing the action, the Magistrate held that she could not succeed on the claim. As to tho claim for damages for neglect to store in a proper manner, the Magistrate held that although defendant did not enter into a direct contract for storage, yel ho accepted the car for sale, and took it into his premises for tliau purpose. Later, to suit his own convenience, he handed the car to a third party for storage purposes, and while in the custody of this party the car was improperly stored and neglected. The Magistrate, held that defendant was liable to plaintiff, and gave judgment for £40 and costs £7 7s. Bd.