NON-SUIT GIVEN

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 338, 27 September 1932, Page 6

NON-SUIT GIVEN

MOTOR CAR ACTION MAGISTRATE CRITICISES HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENTS • LEGISLATION REQUIRED A claim for £113 between a motor dealing firm and a'car purchaser came to an abrupt conclusion in.the Rotorua Magistrate's Court yesterday, without the defence being called upon, when the Magistrate, Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M.,. non-suited plaintiffs for failing to prove that certain promissory notes upon which the claim was based, had been dishonoured. His Worship expressed the opinion that the systsrrf which permitted motor firms to seize cars on default and then sue for the balance of purchase money, was "iniquitous" and that legislation should be introduced to amend the pusition. The claim was one in which Bates and Son sued Walter Smith, farmer, of Te Whaiti, for the value of the amount of the dishonoured promissory notes on the balance of a hire purchase agreement of a car. Mr. W. A. Carter, who appeared for

Bates and Son outlined the proceedings taken. John Charles Bates gave evidence that in September, 1930, Smith had purchased a car from his firm and had given a number of promissory notes in payment." Mr. J. D. Davys, for defendant, objected to the production of the promissory notes since they were only a part of the transaction. The Bench allowed their production. To the Bench, witness said that he had endorsed the promissory notes and forwarded them to the New Zealand Guarantee Corporation. Later he found that they had been dishonoured and he met the first four in cash and later met three more by his own promissory notes. This he did to try to dispose of the car. This would also be to Smith's advantage. Witness also claimed interest at the rate of 10 per cent. Mr. Davys objected in that the rate was fixed in the agreement and could not bs varied. Continuing, witness also claimed for

some parts for a truck. To Mr. Davys. Mr. Budd his accountant had full authority to act for the firm in all matters of finance. Witness could not remember the exact date the car had been seized but it was som'e time in May. An offer of £250 had been received for the car, which owing to other costs would be reduced to £220. The car was in the possession of witness's agents. Witness agreed that Smith had got fresh registration papers and the car had been transferred to his firm on August 29 and his firm summoned Smith on September 2. Witness said that, in all l cases, the New Zealand Guarantee ! Corporation held all promissory notes. It was not correct that in accepting a transfer he relieved Smith of all liability. He was sueing Smith for promissory notes after he had seiz-ed the car. This was because, after a car had been run for a week, the depreciation was considerable. To the Bench: His firm seized the car. The Bench: By what right? You had no right, and you committed trespass by seizing. The only person who could do so, was the New Zealand Guari antee Corporation. Mr. Carter contended that Bates and Son were agents. The Bench disagreed and asked what authority Bates had to seize the car. Plaintiff: No written authority, but it is the usual proceedure. The Bench: There is no right and you are liable for trespass. It is iniquitous and it is high time that this was put an end to. These agreements are simply assisting the motor firms to fleece people. Legislation should be framed to stop this. Mr. Carter: Well, it is the usual procedure. The Bench: It may be, but it is not right. Mr. Davys: That is just what we | contend. I Mr. Carter: It is surprising what | one finds out when one looks up these j cases. ! The Bench: And what one doesn't find. Mr. Davys. Quite so. Non-Suit Allowed ' After the luncheon adjournment Bates Senr. stated that he valued the car at £200. The original cost was £517 and consequently he would be about £100 short. To Mr. Davys: The value of the car when it was seized was £300 or more. ; Arnold Ford Budd, accountant for Bates and Son, . gave evidence as to the financial side of the transaction. | Smith had assigned his estate in Feb- : ruary 1931. The claim for some parts for a truck was prior to that and must be abandoned. ; Smith said that he would have no • difficulty in meeting the payments on ! the car, since he expected some £10,000 from a Te Whaiti deal. Bates then had no diffidence in closing the deal. Bates and Son had subsequently ; assumed responsibility for seven pro- : missory notes. He knew that Bates and Son seized the car. This was ; quite a customary practice of theirs ■ if default were made. To Mr. Davys witness said that he

was authorised to sign Smith's deed of assignment on behalf of Bates. and Son. This concluded plaintiff's case. Mr. Davys moved for a non-suit on the grounds that plaintiff had failed to prove notice of dishonour of the promissory notes. Mr. Carter said that the promissory notes themselves, showed proof of dishonour. The Bench supported Mr. Davy's contention and non-suited plaintiff with costs to defendant. Solicitors' fees £10 4/- were awarded defendant plus court costs 18/-.