“DON'T BELIEVE YOU”

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 932, 27 March 1930, Page 11

“DON'T BELIEVE YOU”

WOMAN CAR-OWNER WINS CLAIM JUDGE'S STRONG COMMENT “Pooh! 1 don’t believe you. Do you think the Court is a fool?" TMTIS indignant comment was ad- ■* dressed by Mr. Justice Ostler, in the Court today, to Harry Jacobs, manager ©f the Equitable Loan and Finance Company, Limited, against which Mrs. Ina Beatrice Wills obtained judgment "or the taking of accounts and profits with interest over the sale of her car, which the company seized and sold under a mortgage. The car figure..! in the sensational midnight dash by Mrs. Wills down Dominion Road, and her capture after a thrilling chase by the police. The car was handed over by Mrs. Wills to the company at the police station just after the arrest. Mrs. Wills claimed that she had , mortgaged the car on July 12, 1927, to the Equitable Loan and Finance Company for £IOO and interest. She alleged that the firm had sold the vehicle in August. 1927, and had refused to account to her for the proceeds - . She asked for the taking of accounts and interest on any profits due to her to date. ALLEGATIONS DENIED The allegations were denied by the defendant company, who asserted that after the proceeds of the sale of the car were taken into .account, £l9 11s ori was still owing by Mrs. Wills. Mr. Quartley appeared for the plain tiff ar.d Mr. Simpson for the d^fendom Evidence of having purchased the car for £lB5 from Cliegwedd n s auction mart was given by Mrs. Edith M. McAuliffe. She confessed she could not truthfully say she was satisfied with her bargain on learning the car had belonged to Mrs. Wills. Notice of change of ownership on October 12, 1927 of the car from Mrs. Wills to the Equitab.c Loan Company, who had seized it under a bill ot sale, was produced by Robert G. Brockett, motor vehicles registrar. The same day, he said, he received a notification of sale of the car from the company to Mrs. McAuliffe. Charles Chegwidden, formerly an auctioneer, said that in August, 1927, under instructions from the company, ho offered the car at public auction. At £ll7 it was sold to Jacobs, manager of the defendant company, but witness did not receive a cheque. A BOGUS' SALE “If you did not receive a cheque it was a bogus sale?” commented his Honour. “I was paid my commission,” replied witness.

The car was subsequently sold to Hrs. McAuliffe, and after deducting commission, witness sent a cheque for £167 to the defendant company. He i regarded Jacobs and the company as ; one and the same, he said. Under cross-examination, Chegwidden declared the sale was bona fide. ' Jacobs being the highest bidder, and j witness was under the impression Jacobs was purchasing personally. The ear was terribly knocked about and I worth only between £7O and £so, in witness’s opinion. For the defence, Mr. Simpson claimed the car was bought by Jacobs personally, and the fact of transfer and registration not being made before was a mistake. “All 1 can say, on the face of the documents, you will have a job to j persuade me of that,” commented his i Honour. “The documents are signet) by Jacobs in the name of the eoraI pany. How can you say it was a mistake. If anyone said that. I wouldn't believe him.” The Judge advised coun- . sel to account for the proceeds and claim for expenses of repairs to the I car. “You can go on with the defence 1 if you like, but I don’t see how you can say the car was not bought by tlh defendant company,” added his Honour. Marry Jacobs, manger of the defendant firm, said th*t when Airs. Wills was arrested, she instructed him at the police station to take and kell the oar. I The tyres, tubes and rims on ilie oar j were stolen property, and the battery j been obtained under false pretences and these were removed by ihe ' police. He declared he had bought the ) car personally in August, and after having it repainted sold it again in October, receiving a cheque fo which was credited to his account. His Honour: How do you come to be banking in your account a com pan v cheque, if the car was your property? A FAMILY CONCERN “It is a family company and any sur--1 plus cash we have we pay into the company’s account,” replied the witness. He added that he, his father and mother-in-law wero shareholders. His Honour to Mr. Simpson: You can ask him any question you like. I'm not going to believe this witness. “I have not the slightest doubt in the world that Jacobs bought in the car on behalf of the company,” said his Honour, “and that it was held and sold on the firm’s behalf in act. Even had the car been bought by Jacobs personally he would have been up against a rule of law that a person who acts for the mortgagee in arranging a loan i was not a competent purchaser from j the mortgage under a private sale. Costs were allowed to plaintiff.