ROLLS-ROYCE DEAL.

Taranaki Daily News, 24 August 1920, Page 6

ROLLS-ROYCE DEAL.

ACTION IN THE COURT. An action arising out of the alleged sale and the re-sale of a .Rolls-Royce motor car was heard at the New Plymouth Magistrate's Court yesterday, hefore Mr! T. A.' B. Bailey, S.M., when the Trustees of the Morrison Estate (Masterton), for whom Mr. H. R, Biss appeared, sued Mr. A..Smith, proprietor of the Criterion' motor garage, for whom Mr. H. R. Billing appeared, for the sum of £125, being £IOO for the loss incurred by the resale of the ear, which it was alleged had been sold to defendant and rejected by him, and £25 general damages.

Mr. Biss outlined the evidence for the plaintiff, which had been taken in Masterton. This showed that in November, 101S, R. D. M. Morrison died, and his widow made a tour through Taranaki in May, 1019, pulling the Rolls-Royce car up at the Criterion garage, where defendant spoke to the chauffeur, as to whether the qfir was for sale. Both the chauffeur and Mrs. Morrison made it clear that they had no power to sell, and referred him to tlie trustees. Smith accordingly wrote to the secretary of the trustees, who replied that the trustees were asking £BOO for the car. but if he wired £750 he would advise his trustees to accept. Smith accordingly wired, offering £750, and a reply was forwarded that the car was.his, and to arrange re delivery. Later defendant refused to accept delivery, and a telegram was forwarded to tlie chauffeur to bring the car back to.Masterton, where thenar was resold for £650, after a "telegram had been forwarded to defendant, giving him till noon of the following day to complete the purchase. Mr. Biss contended that the telegrams, taken together, constituted a direct contract. He pointed out that the trustees did not sacrifice the car at Mr. Smith's expense, but got a fair price, £1)50, for the car, which was a huge consumer of benzine, and only suitable for a wealthy person. Mr. Billing did not call evidence, but pointed out that the telegram received regarding the re-sale of the car was received at fl p.m. on the night prior to the re-,sale being completed, and gave them till 9 a.m. the next morning, whereas in evidence Mr. Logan stated that the resale was to be completed by noon. No time was therefore given. The evidence,, he submitted, showed that the re-sa.ie took place on the spur of- the momwt, and that £BOO would probably <aave been received for the car in six months' time; that the person who purchased for £650 obtained a snip. He submitted also that plaintiff could not succeed because the telegrams did not disclose a written contract. Sufficient notice had not been given of the intention to re-sell. As a non-suit point he pointed out that there was no proof hat the trustees had obtained probate and wgre entitled to sue. Judgment was reserved.