UNUSUAL CASE

North Otago Times, Volume CVII, Issue 17748, 10 March 1927, Page 6

UNUSUAL CASE

HUSBAND AS DEFENDANT. Ys'iFK ALLEGED \VRONGDOER. An unusual case came before 3Ir H. W. Bundle, S.M., yesterday when a husband was named as defendant in a claim for daniages al.legedly bronght about by the wife asking her son, William Scoon, to mahe use of a car which was involved in a collision while the son was driving his motlier along Reed Street. The plaintiiT in the case was Gray Russell Hunter, who was rcpresented by Mr P. C. Hjorring, and the defendants were Rohert Scoon and Mary Scoon, for whom Mr H. Grater appeared. The statement of claim aileged that in June last Mary Scoon wrongfully authorised William Scoon, a son of the defendants, to take a Citroen car from plaintift s premises. The car was damaged in a collision and £94 16s 6d was claimed as damages, including £20 as depreciation of the tyres and enaine of a ^Star car used while the Citroen was being repaired, £3 10s for extra petrol and oil used, and £50 as depreciation of the Citroen. Mr Hjorring said the case was brought by Hunter against Scoon and his wife. William Scoon worked in Hunter's garage and took a car, used for carrying the mail from Dunedin to Oamaru, at the request of his mother and without Hunter's authority, While he Avas going along Reed Street a collision "occurred and the car was considerably damaged. The claim was brought agajnst the two defendants as Mr Scoon was the wrong-doer and, being such her husband was responsible. Scoon might be in an unfortunate position, but the law made him responsible if they could prove that Mrs Scoon took the car without authority. Charles James Lowery, assessor and valuer for insurance companies, said he had twelve years' experience in the motor business. He knew.the Citroen car of Hunter's. At the time it was purchased it was worth £350. After the accident he valued the car at £180. Just prior to the accident he would have valued it at £250. The car subsequently used by plaintiiT, a Star, '^vas more costly to run than the Citroen. Both engine lugs were broken and welded and this greatly depreciated the value of the car. When he made his assessment he did not know that there was to be a Court case. He. I estimated that the Star, if new, ! would have depreciated to the exI tent of £75 after being run 2500 imiles. The difference in runnlng a ! Star and a Citroen for two weeks i would .be from £20 to £25 without. j depreciation. I To Mr Grater- He did not know ; )t was Hunter's car at the time of j his valuation. Witness did not tell i Hunter that if he knew the car was j his (Hunter's) the depreciation ! would not have been so high. A ; Star would tio 27 or 28 miles to the j «allon and a Citroen 35 to 40. i Where a Citroen tyre would give J 10,000 miles, a Star would do 2000 ; Iess. ! Gray Russell Hunter, plaintift. a i motor garage proprietor, said he earried the mail from Dunedin to Oamaru. In June last he was _ using a Citroen car which he hired for £5 a week. It was in good order and had done 1700 miles. William Scoon, ,a son of the defendants, worked in the garage. On the day of the accident Mrs Scoon called at witness' house and informed .wit-nc-ss that her son had had an accicentN with witness' car. Witness asked who gave him permission to get the car. Mrs Scoon re'plied that sbe asked her son to bring the car

as her feat were sore and she hau to go to Reed Street William, Scoon had absolutely no permission to take the car, but had been given permission fo do so when he had asked. The father called to see witness and said whatever it cost he would see Avitness through. Scoon said he had been very angry with his wife for asking the boy to get the car. Scoon offered witness £12 10s which was refused. The Star had been bought by witness about three months before . the accident and used for demonstrations. He was upable to pay for it and had to return it, losing about £90. The Citroen had to be practically stripped to carry out repairs. Witness considered that the Citroen would do 32 miles to the gallon on his work and the Star 25 or 26. The latter was more severe on cord tyres than the Citroen was on balloon' tyres. While running the Star he used five tyres worth £5 5s each. While he could not use the Citroen he still had to pay £5 a week for its hire. Witness had been summoned for £65 for depreciation to the Citroen. Cross-examined by Mr Grater, witness said William Scoon Avas paid for any overtime worked while the car wras under repair. William Scoon had since driven the car, but had been -"distinctly told not to take it without permission. Defendant did not tell witness he would pay £12 10s until five months after the accident. Witness said he arrived at the £50 for depreciation hy the selling value of the car. It was not correct that the car had been damaged three times previously. Witness did not say to William Scoon after the accident, "1 suppose I will have to stand half of this." Elizabeth Hunter, wife oi the previous witness, and Josepli Hunter, also gave evidence. Mr Grater, for the defence, said defendant's case was a denial that Mrs Scoon reqiiested her sori to use the car. The son had been employI ed for two years with Hunter and Avas in the habit of taking home a car at meal times. On the day of the accident William Scoon had said that he would give his mother a lift down the street. In order to commit a tort it would be necessary for Mrs Scoon to authorise her son to take the ear and know that it was wrong for him to do so. So far as the damages svere concerned he felt the Court would ■' agree that they were excessive and there were no delinite statements as to how,thc various claims were arrived at. Mary Scoon told tlie Court that two dnys before the accident she asked her son if he would have the car the following day. Her son said he ditt not know. Oa the Thursday (the day of the accidehT) bt brought a car home for lunch ani: olTered witness a lift after lunch Witness did not ask him to bring the car home. After the accident witness wcnt to Hunter'.* house and acquainted Hunter with what had Iiappened. .She saicl her husband would he fair and do the right thing. Hunter did not ask where her son goi perm'^'ion to use the - -av. nor did slic sav thaL she had

1 aslce'd Her sor the ^ car home. Her s aght a 'car home two an* i .ncs a day. To Mr Tipi er son used several make* t ..rs to go Ifome in. When tlie tuvhient occurred he was taking the ear to Hunter s house in Torridge Street ap.d had offered witness a lift. She intended calling to see a friend > at Beach Road, but she did not tell her son that. Witness was pressed by Mr Hjorring to state when she told her son that she was going to see the ; friend, but she evaded a direct \ answer and retorted, "You can 1 1 bluff me." After getting into the car she toki her son that she was going to visit her friend. She hacl j never requested her son to take a car.' Witness did not know whether her son always went along Reed Street. Mr Hjorring: Were your feet sore that day? Witness (promptly): They were Continuing, witness said after the accident she walked out to see her friend and walker back. Hunter's statement that she had told him slre had asked her son to take the car was not correct. Mr Hjorring: So that the Hunter?, are telling stories? Witness: They are. Mr Hjorring: What made you say that your husband would do the fair thing? Witness: Because I thought that if I had not been in the cac. my son would have turned down Dee Street. Mr Hjorring: Did your son say why he was going to Hunter's house? Witness: Ple was taking the car back to the house. Mr Hjorring. Was not your boy treated well at Hunter's? Witness: Not as regards wages. Mr Hjorring: Did he get the sack? Witness: No! Mr Hunter begged us to let him stay. Mr Hjorring: Why did you send •your husband to make an offer to Hunter? Witness: I didn't send him. He went on his own accord. Robert Scoon gave evidence that he had offered to pay for the damagc to the Citroen car. He told Hunter to offer £30 depreciation and svitness would pay £12 10s as his share of the depreciation in addition to £12 10s damages. To Mr Hjorring. He made the | offer because his son was involved j in the accident and in fairness to j Hunter. He liad no reason to com- ! plain of Hunter as his son's emj ployev. He made the first offer to J pay the damages on the Saturday | following the accident. Three i weeks kiter he renewed that offer ! and also offered to pay part of the i depreciation. Witness' son told j witness that at the time of the acci- ; dent he was giving his mother ,a ! lift up Reed Street. { William Scoon said he had someI times taken cars without permis- ! sion. On the day in question he j knew his mother was going out, she j usually went out once a week, .and j he took the car home to give her a | lift. His mother did not ask him to i bring the car home. He took his mother along Reed Street and was going to turn down Exe Street, drop his mother, and go back to Hunter/? house. Witness said he helpedTto repair the car, but had not been paid for any overtime. He • denigd that his mother had asked J him to take the car. He had often ! driven it since it had been repaired. | To Mr Hjorring: Ple had never i had his mother out in the car be1 fore, His mother had not asked him when he was going to bring the car l'ound. She told him on the Monday night that she was going i to see her friend. Witness did not ' lell anybody that he took the car j at Ihe request of his mother ! Mr Hjorring: Were you asked by ! Mr Grater if you took the car out at your mother's request? AVitness: I don't think so. John Welsh was about to give evidence, but Mr IPjorring's objection to the questions was upheld and the witness retired. Thc Magistrate reserved his decision.