OWNERSHIP OF CAR

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 38, 1 March 1937, Page 3

OWNERSHIP OF CAR

Dispute Before Magistrate at Waipukurau DECISION RESERVED

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

WAIPUKURAU, This day. In the Magistrate's Court at Waipukurau on Friday, Doris Stabler, Waipukurau, claimed from Cecil M. Payne, Waipukurau, the return of a motor car, or, alternatively, the sum of £75 18/-; also the sum of £10, for the alleged wrongful detention of the car, and the sum of £2 a week for the use of the car from November 27, 1936, to the date of judgment. The greater part of the evidence for the plaintiff was heard at the December sitting, but completion was held up because of the lack of a certain document bearing on the case. An adjournment was made till Friday, when the case was completed, Plaintiff, counsel said, was employed by the Hawke's Bay Farmers' Cooperative Association. Defendant had, for a number of years, boarded with her mother. In June, while the defendant was employed as a salesman for a Hastings motor firm. he had brought a car home and suggested that plaintiff should buy it. He had stated that he would want the use of a car in August when he would have a job in the country and that he would put his commission down as the deposit and she could pay the instalments. Plaintiff bought the car on July 22, the defendant obtaining her signature to the necessary papers. She paid the monthly instalments to Payne, as agent of the motor firm; he remitted them to the firm, and she received the receipts direct. Plaintiff lent the car to Payne while he was on country work, and, when he had finished, took it back. On November 22 Payne wanted her to lend it to him again; she refused and he produced a form of transfer of ownership, which he said she had signed. "Miss Stabler does not know whether she signed the form on June 15," said counsel. "She signed all the papers that were put before her, but she did not know that she had signed a transfer of ownership. She understood that all the papers she signed were relating to the transfer of the car to herself." "On November 25, counsel continued, a transfer of ownership was presented at the Post Office by Payne, transferring the ownership of the car to himself and a duplicate certificate of registration was obtained. On November 27 plaintiff went to work in the car and left it parked outside. When she went to go home the car was missing. She learned that Payne had taken it and informed Constable Sutton. Defendant refused to give up the car, claiming that it belonged to him and that he, and not plaintiff, had paid the instalments. Doris Stabler gave evidence on the lines indicated by her counsel. She stated that she had paid all instalments, £4 8/3 a month. When she signed the papers in June she thought she was transacting the necessary business for the sale of the car to herself. There was never any suggestion that the car should belong to anyone else. On November 22, defendant asked for a loan of the car and witness refused. "He then pulled a blank sheet out of his pocket and said, 'I'll fix you with this. You didn't anticipate anything of this sort happening,' " witness declared. Case For the Defence. Counsel for Payne said that the defence was that the car had been bought by Payne, in plaintiff 's name, and that he had made all the payments for it. The reason why he had bought it in plaintiff 's name was that he was an undischarged bankrupt, and that he was separated from his wife, who was pressing him for increased maintenance payments. Cecil Mears Payne said that he might have told Miss Stabler that he would marry her if he could get a divorce. He had not known Miss Stabler two months before he told her that he was a married man. Continuing, witness said that plaintiff had suggested that he (Payne) should buy the car. He explained to her the circumstances, that he was an undischarged bankrupt and that his wife was pressing him for increased maintenance. She then suggested that they should buy the car jointly. He refused, because he knew that she could not pay even half the instalments. She then suggested that the car should be bought by him in her name. This was done. Witness was a free lance motor agent at the time and needed the car. Miss Stabler signed the necessary papers. The next day or the day afterwards she signed the notice of change of ownership. "Miss Stabler came home at lunch time," said witness. "I had the papers lying on my duchess. I asked her to sign them in blank, which she did. I said to her, 'Would you mind signing the change of ownership form on my duchess there?' " Witness went on to state that he paid all the instalments. Miss Stabler did not pay one penny. From the

time the car was purehased, witness said, he had the sole use of it. It was untrue that he paid the deposit on the car in consideration of having the use of it when he was on country work, because he had no intention of taking country work when the car was bought. "When Miss Stabler came out to the country to get the car she became very hostile because of something she had apparently heard," witness said. He lent her the car, for her holidays, although they were not reconciled. He did that because he had used her name in purchasing the car, and thought it a fair thing to make some return. There had never been any previous suggestion that the car was Miss Stabler's. Cross-examined, Payne said that he had not been in a position to pay for

the car comfortably. To do so he had had to default in his maintenance payments. Counsel: You deprived your wife and children to pay for the car? - Yes. Counsel: Did you lead Miss Stabler to believe that you would be in a position to marry her? - No. Did you lead her to believe that you wished to marry her? - She may have gained that impression herself. Counsel produced a letter written by Payne to Miss Stabler. In the course of it he said: "I want you for my wife" and "I am looking foward to the day when I can make you my wife." The Magistrate said that it was a most unusual case. He had made up his mind, but would take time to give reasons for his decision,