SALE OF A CAR.

Hokitika Guardian, 13 March 1925, Page 4

SALE OF A CAR.

ACTION AGAINST CLERGYMAN

WELLINGTON, March 11. Before Mr W. G. 'Riddell, S.M., today, George Ayson, architect, sued the Rev. Samuel Robertson Orr. for £lO in respect of a motor-car sold by him to de fondant.

For plaintiff it was stated that Orr purchased the car in 1923 tor £l5O, and took it for a demonstration run. Later Orr informed Ayson that the battery of the car had been stolen, and offered him £llO, which was accepted. Plaintiff believed the statement that the battery was missing was false and fraudulent, and made recklessly by Orr to induce plaintiff to sell at a lower figure. The battery was afterwards found in defendant's house by the pol-

Mr .1. A. Scott, for plaintiff, asked for an adjournment Li 11 to-morrow, as an essential witness was detained with a jurv case at Mastorton. lie knew defendant was on the eve ol his departure from the Dominion. The .Magistrate said the case must proceed. In ovidcm-c olaintilf su'd ( *rr subsequently asked him to sign a statement that he was satisfied with the price received for the car, and he reluscd. Orr locked the door of the room and detained him for some time. Mr A. R. Kievwright. for defendant, said his client and his wife would deny the statements of plaintill which wore entirely from imagination. Plaintiff denied that he had got rid of a “dud” car on Orr. It was not for that reason that he declined to bruit hack at the price paid. He wished Orr to defend the action, and had not commenced proceedings to catch Orr just, before lie left. If Oil- luul enough money to go Home lie had enough to pay him. lie refuted the suggestion by Mr Hievu right that the ease was a “species of blackmail” or of writing anonymous letters to the members ol Orr’s congregation. Detective .Murray gave evidence as to Orr misunderstanding the position of the accumulator and battery, and thought they were different. In the afternoon Mr Scott asked lor a non-suit, as he was unable to secure the attendance of three essential witnesses. The case would he proceeded with when defendant returned to the. Dominion. Mr Kievwright asked for the costs and expenses of his client. A uoii-suit was granted. Defendant 1 was allowed £9 5s expenses of travoll- I ing from Auckland, mid costs and soli- 1 eitor’s fee, £ls 3s in all. 1