WHO OWNED THE CAR?

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 218, 13 March 1912, Page 6

WHO OWNED THE CAR?

A THRICE SOLD AUTOMOBILE. INTERESTING LITIGATION. A somewhat extraordinary case was decided by Mr. Justice Sim at the Supreme Caurt yesterday afternoon, when; the Rev. Father E. J. JJergin sued E., May for the return of a motor-car or in lieu thereof the sum of; £350. Plaintiff, who was represented by Mr. J. E. Wilson, also claimed damages on the same account. Mr. Frank E. Wilson appeared for defendant.

Briefly put the facta of the case as outlined by counsel are that in May of last year plaintiff purchased a motor-car. from G. W. Gunson, paying altogether £2OO on account. While the motor-car was under repair at Gnnson's garage the allegation is that ho sold it to one Wali lath, 'and not content with this he again, the car to E. Slay, the defendant'in 1 the action. The irony of the whole transaction is that each purchaser imagined, it is stated, that he was receiving a new car, and of course knew | nothing of its antecedents. The hearing of the case did not occupy much time," The plaintiff, Rev. Edward John Berlin. residing at- Manaia. and a Driest of

gin, residing ai iviuutua,, anu a pne#i, ui the Roman Catholic Church, gave evidence to the effect that at the iend of April last year he agreed to buy a car from GUnson for £350. Two instalments of £IOO each were paid in' May of the same year, and he gave Gunson promissory notes for the balance, which were now due. Shortly afterwards the car broke down at Hawera, aM a fortv night later jit was taken' to Gunson's garage at New Plymouth for repair. Gunson then told witness that it would be'.three months before he could secure the new cylinder from Home. Plaintiff then! requested Gunson to either alt<£ .the back seat and make it moveable or got him a new car. At the end of the three months, he went to see Guns«n,

asking him if it was correct he was in financial difficulties, and he replied

".Yes" He told witness not to worry as ike. would; get money to straighten ,his t affeirs 'lfr'ojn Auckland. Gunson then, said the had sold plaintiffs car at Auckland, .Gunson assured him, however, he need not worry, stating tljat seeing he could not make the alteration in the, car as r>equested without disfiguring it, he thought the next best thing was to order a new one. This he said he had done, stating that the car would be at Auckland by the following Thursday. Witness then went away, but, contrary to expectations, he got no further word J ,.from Gunson. He saw no more of Gunson,'who had, so it is stated, levanted. Some two or three months later he recognised:' his car in May's car shed. ' On no occasion had he authorised Gun--1 son to sell the car.

To Mr. Frank Wilson: It was not part of the arrangment that the promissory notes were to be. endorsed by P. McGuire. Gunson left the promissory | notes with witness to be sent to him when they ; became due. He made no Linqulry for documents to prove Gunson's ownership of the car.

To Mr, J. E. Wilson: Though he had I lost his car he did not intend at the,J time tp make trouble for Gunson providing he made restitution. " ,Edwin May, baker, at New Plymouth,' i &fensarit jn , the action,, said he «a,W\ Gunson towards the end.'.of July, and agffiea' to purchase the motcir-car from him for £B6O. In July he made a payment,of £240, and a horse a trap, valued at £6O, representing a total of £3OO. In September last he paid the balance. He made inquiries for the bill I of lading and was told that it was at the Bank of New Zealand. The doeuj:metft,.however, was not found. The car remained undisturbed in his possession I for three months. On October 2 demand ' was made for the car by a Mr. Wallath, | and subsequently by the plaintiff in the j present action. The car was now in good running order. To Mr.- J. E. Wilson: Father Bergin had satisfied him that it was his car. Addressing the court counsel for the defendant said the evidence showed that the property and goods did not pass to plaintiff under 'T3ale of Goods Act." Another fact -to be considered was that the car was never in a condition that Gunson could have compelled plaintiff to complete purchase. The relation of yendor and car never ceased until it passed into May's hands. As regards the claim for damages the ear was handed in by plaintiff in a damaged state, while to-day it was in first-class order.

Mr. J. E. Wilson, in his summary of the facts, remarked that while Father Bergin certainly did not get exactly the tear he wanted, still he certainly did everything to indicate that he had agreed to purchase it. The facts were clear that Gunson got in grave financial difficulties, and sold plaintiffs car first to Wallath and later to May. who had no 'better title than Father Betgin. In giving his verdict for plaintiff, His Honor said that there appeared to be no doubt that plaintiff had accepted delivery of the car. The evidence showed that defendant had bought the car in good faith, and it was simply a question which of two innocent ■ persons would have to suffer by the actions rff a rogue. His Honor then directed that the car should be returned to plaintiff, j>r in the alternative the defendant would have to pay £350. Costs were allowed plaintiff on the lowest scale. j