ABOUT A MOTOR-CAR.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9469, 11 June 1909, Page 5

ABOUT A MOTOR-CAR.

The Feiiding Court was occupied yesterday afternoon with the case Clarkson v. Porter, claim £IOO. The facts of the case are that Porter on the 19th March last, at about 9.30 a.m., was taken to the shop of Mr W. Clarkson by Mr John Tomlinson, to see a 2-cylinder Stewart motor oar, the property of Mr Owen Pleasants, but in possession of Mr W.' Clarkson for sale. Mr Porter, after examining the car, agreed to purchase it at £l4O and to give two bills for the amount. The ' bills were written ont at the rime, one for £IOO and one for £4O. Mr Porter wished to take the car away at the time, bnt he was unable to do so as it was not quite its working order. Mr Clarkson stated in Court that when Mr Porter returned later he thought he was not in a fit condition to take away tte oar. Late in the afternoon, however, he was sent home in the oar. Four days afterwards the defendant asked the plaintiff to take back the oar on the ground that he was rirnnk when he made the bargain. The defendant, in his evidence, declared that he had no remembrance whatever of buying the car or signing the bills, and in fact that owing to drink his mind was a complete blank from the time he entered Feiiding sober on Thursday morning up to Sunday morning following. According to the evidence of Messrs Prior, Mitchell, and Sommerville the defendant .was drunk at tbe time he purchased the car, though the evidence of the last two was not sufficiently definite as to the date. Mrs Porter confirmed the evidence of her husband.

Mr Graham, who appeared for the plaintiff said §the law in respect to a drnnken man who made an agreement was that it was voidable, but in order to do so it must be shovfn not only that he was drnnk, hut also that the other person with whom he made the agreement recognised his condition. He also drew attention to the fact that the office where the bill was signed was a dark place, to account for the irregularity of the signature. He then called Messrs Tomlinson and Cooper who were present at the time the agreement to sell was made with the defendant, and they both declared that he appeared to he quite sober. Mr Wackroll was also called and stated that as manager for the Farmers’ Motor Co. he had sold Mr Porter a oar, but subsequently allowed the agreement to lapse. For the defence evidence was given which showed that the Bank had refused to honour the £IOO bill because the signature was -unlike. Mr Gillespie, who appeared for the defendant, drew attention to the irregularity of the signature, and in respect to the law on contracts with a drunken man he said the knowledge of the plaintiff of the state of the defendant must be inferred. His Worship said that it did appear to him that it was foolish of Porter to buy a motor car without having a trial, hut it was not every transaction a Magistrate considered foolish that could be upset. The statement of the law by Mr Graham was correct; a man must be in such a state aa to be absolutely incapable of understanding what he was doing and the one doing business with him must be aware of his condition in order to make the transaction void, and the onus of proving a state of drunkenness rested on the defendant. In the present case he could not accept the evidence of Mitchell and Sommerville as to the condition of the defendant as referring to the date of the agreement. His Worship pointed cut the weight of evidence was on the side of the plaintiff and gave judgment in the latter’s favour with £ll 18s costs.