TRESPASS CLAIM

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 52, Issue 3299, 11 August 1943, Page 8

TRESPASS CLAIM

HIRE PURCHASE SEQUEL JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF ENTRY BY MISREPRESENTATION A claim for trespass with an alternative claim based on the defenant’s bleach of a statutory duty under the Hire Purchase Agreements Act was brought in the Magistrate’s Court at Waihi on Wednesday before Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M. Mrs Mabel Smith, of Waihi (Mr H. L. Boughton), claimed £2O from J. E. Haywood, Ltd., of Auckland, Mr F. C. V. Clark being instructed to appear for the defendant. “ Called to Inspect Machine ” In opening, Mr Boughton stated that the plaintiff was the owner of a small farm property and was milkingseven cows. In May, 1941, she entered into an agreement to purchase a milking plant. She understood that no payments would be demanded for June, July and August in each year. There was lengthy correspondence between the parties and in January of this year two men called at the house and represented that they were from the Twigg Engineering Co., Ltd., of Auckland. They said they had heard of the bad grading of the cream from plaintiff’s place and that they had called to inspect the machine. On this representation they gained admission. Later it was ascertained that the men were representatives of the defendant company, one of the men being Mr Haywood. After they had gone parts of the machine were missing and it was admitted later by Haywood that they had’removed them. The defendant company admitted that it had hidden the parts under a hedge fronting plantiff’s property.

Frederick Harold Smith was the first witness and he corroborated his counsel’s statement. In cross-exam-ination he admitted that he had experimented with the machine, but with the approval of Haywood’s, who were interested. Mabel Smith, the plaintiff, stated that she had never given anyone permission to enter her property and remove any parts from the machine. With the exception of the June, July and August payments'she had paid regularly. Case for the Defence Mr Clark, for the defence, stated that it was contended that there had been no trespass by the defendants. The hire agreement gave the company the right to enter upon the property of the plaintiff and remove parts of the machine. If any trespass had been committed it had been by the Twigg Engineering Co., Ltd., and no claim could be brought against Haywood’s. There was no claim for a breach of a statutory duty as the Act provided a penalty for its non-observ-ance and there was no civil claim. The evidence of James Enoch Haywood and Joffre Haig McDonald was taken at Auckland, Mr Haywood stating that he had not represented that he was from the Twigg Engineering Co., Ltd. He had 'been introduced as Mr James, by which name he was known to his employees. He had disclosed to the husband of the plaintiff that he was Haywood. Views of Magistrate

The magistrate stated that he would peruse the evidence of the defendant and give his decision the following morning and. on Monday morning he delivered judgment. After stating that he was not going to concern himself with the law on the matter he said that the defendants had gained admission to the farm by a lie and a subterfuge. He gave judgment for the plaintiff in equity and good conscience for the full amount claimed and £6 13s costs.