HIS RISK

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 350, 11 October 1932, Page 6

HIS RISK

COMMENT BY BENCH SECOND-HAND DEALER HAS TO RETURN GOODS NOT SOLD BY OWNER Stating that if a second-hand deaier purchased goods from. anyone without first ascertaining that the seller was the correct owner, he did so at " his own risk, Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., entered judgment for plaintiffs in a case in which one, Matheson, sued C. Tuck, second-hand dealer, both of Rotorua, for the possession of a wheel barrow and a gramophone sold to him by some people named Holden, Mr. E. Roe, for plaintiff, said that Matheson had identified the goods in Tuck's shop. Tuck and Mrs. Tuck had become abusive when in company with one of the firm's law clerks he had visited Tuck's shop. The goods had not been returned. Tuck when written to had told the firm to go ahead. Charles Matheson said he valued the goods at £2 each He had lent them to a man named Holden who, witness heard, had sold them to Tuck. Witness consulted his solicitors and accompanied by a law clerk went to Tuck's shop where he identified Ihe goods. ■ There was some argument th.e clerk being quite polite, but Mrs. Tuck said something about the law and told him to get out of it. She became very excited. Tuck later came out of a back room and told them to "get to the deuce out of it." Neither witness nor the clerk gave any provocation. Examined by Mr. G. McDowell witness said that he had the goods when he was a tenant of Mrs. Holden. He did not owe any rent or any money to Holden. It was not correct that his daughter had given the gramophone to Holdens. Witness explained that he had lent the barrow to Holden, and had left the gramophone behind owing to an oversight. Witness left the goods there for 11 months — until he wanted them. He had never said that the articles were of no use for he used the barrow in his trade. Had No Demand To Mr. Roe : Until the proceedings were taken he had had .no demand from Mrs. Holden for money. This demand was absolutely incorrect anu he owed her nothing at all. Mr. McDowell said that Holden's thought that as Matheson left owing some rent the articles left behind were to settle this. The gramophone was worth 2s 6d and the barrow 7s 6d. Hilda Holden gavu evidence of sharing a house with Matheson and that they paid the rent to her when they did co. When they ieft, foar weeks rent at 15s per week waa owing, and they left the goods behind them, which were eonsidered useltss. About a fortnight ago a claim for their return was made, this being the first she had heard of it. Witnes? assumed that Mall.eson s daughter had given ihe g- mnophone. to Holden. The gramophone had been stored in the wa.'h-house, the wood-box i nd the hen-house. Finnlly she sold it to Tuck in conipensation for what she thought Matheson 's owed her. She thought that she should be paid for storage. To Mr. Roe: She thought that if Matheson valued the goods he should have sent for them. She got £1 10s from Tuck's for the goods. She and her husband were eomfortably oll on his military penslon. She had not sent my aeeount in to Matheson for rent. Mr. Roe: Why? Witness: I won't tell you. Mr. Roe: I'd like to know why Witness: That's a matter for me to decide. Matter of Principle Witness in answer to the. bench said that the gramophone was a gift and also she was claiming it for debt. Mr. Roe: You don't like the Matheson's now? Witness: Oh, yes, they're just the same to us now. Mr. Roe: You aren't friendly. Witness: It's a matter of principle with me. Witness then said heatedly that she "had frequently asked Mrs. Matheson for "a few bob," when she was short and had always been told : "Oh, father'll give it to you." H. J. Norris, a valuer, said that the barrow was worth 7s 6d to 10s, and the gramophone "was just junk." Ainsley Clarence Holden, who gave his occupation as "war pensioner," gave his version of the transac-

tion, which was mainly eorroborative of that of his wife. Matheson's daughter gave him the gramophone and he eonsidered it his property. Cross-examined witness denied having at any time used the barrow in the garden. Witness said that his wife was not correct in her evidence regarding the gramophone, stating that it was his property. The Bench delivered judgment for plaintiff, stating that Holden's had proved no title to the property at all. Judgment would be for the return of the goods, plus costs and solicitor's fees, £1 6s. No damage had been proved and none would be awarded.