INVOLVED PURCHASE.

Waikato Times, Volume 108, Issue 18140, 3 October 1930, Page 2

INVOLVED PURCHASE.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

FOUR PARTIES INVOLVED. DISPUTE ' OVER CAR. A claim for £ll3, the value of a motor car, loss of profits, and expenses incurred, was brought in the Hamilton Magistrate’s Court yesterday by Eugenie Jane Coufoorough Wingate, Otahii.hu (Mr J. R. Gray) and John Wilson, of Te Kuiti (Mr K. Low), against Albert Newby, motor service proprietor, of Hamilton (Mr P. 11. Watts). Third party notices had been issued against Reo Motors, Ltd., of Auckland (Mr V. N. Hubble), and William Nicholson, of Hamilton East, County Inspector (Mr Tompkins). The statement of claim set out that plaintiff Wingate was the owner or alternately the grantee in possession under a certain bill-of-salc, from W. E. Nicholson, of a Hudson 12-seater motor car.. ; In April plaintiff Wingate sold the car to plaintiff J. R. Wilson. On the following day defendant took possession of t'he car. A demand for the return of the car was made and this was refused. It was held that the non-return of the car Involved plaintiff in loss over certain contracts he had to perform. The loss over these contracts was estimated at £2O. The oar had since been dismantled by defendant. Mr Wyvern Wilson S.M., was on the Bench. . r An Application Refused. An application to dismiss Reo Motors as a third party was made by Mr Gray. He had received no notice of the issue of this third party and counsel quoted several authorities in support of his submission that the issue was not in order. His Worship did not consider that at the present stage he should dismiss t’he application. He would consider the matter later. ' It was explained by Mr Gray that Miss Wingate, who held a bill-of-sale over a car in possession of W. E. Nicholson, called this bill-of-sale in and the car was placed in the charge of Reo Motors. Negotiations were instigated between two parties for the purchase of the vehicle. Nicholson, who was a relative of Miss Wingate, offered to. take t’he car on terms. This was refused and he was informed that only a cash deal could be considered. A cash offer was made by John Wilson and this was ultimately accepted. In the meantime, however, Nicholson called at the garage and took the car away on payment of £2O. He sold the ear to Newby for £3O. Wilson endeavoured to get possession of his property, but without success. The car was later dismantled by defendant. ' '

C. M. Rattray, solicitor, Auckland, remembered the bill-of-sale held by Miss Wingate, for whom he acted, over a car in possession of Nicholson. The bill-of-sale was subsequently called up. Witness called on Newby in Hamilton and demanded the return of the car. Newby told him that he could not, and would not, return the oar in its original state. Asked, in cross-examination, who, in his opinion, had made the mistake, witness stated, Reo Motors. , Mr .Watts queried why Newby, an innocent party, had been cited, as defendant. Who Was plaintiff?. Mr Tompkins asked witness who was plaintiff in the case, Miss Wingate, or Wilson? Witness answered that Miss Wingate’s interest in the case was in effect only £2 is; expenses incurred. Had Miss Wingate been joined as plaintiff ,as there was some doubt as to whether the sale was to Wilson or Newby? queried Mr Tompkins. That question had come up for consideration, witness answered. Mr Tompkins further queried why the statement of claim set out the value of the car as £BS, whereas it had been -valued by an expert assessor at £2O. Witness pointed out that ‘£Bs was the figure as assessed by Wilson. Witness never considered that Nicholson would ;go along to Reo Motors and take the car without his (witness’) authority. Reo Motors had no authority to sell the car. Wilson’s £2O had been returned to him, witness added in reply to a further question. , Witness had nothing to answer to counsel’s next question as to whether the statement of claim was consistent with the return of the £2O. Mr Hubble produced letters that had passed between witness’ firm and Reo Motors. These letters disclosed that Reo Motors' had written asking what was to be done with certain cars. A reply was received that the valuation on the car in,, question was £2O and that witness would be pleased to receive any offers. .. Witness submitted, in answer to counsel, that Reo Motors had no authority to s'.ell the car without the consent of his firm. It was queried by His Worship whether the words, “AVe would foe pleased to receive any offers,” was not tantamount to giving them authority to sell. Witness held that such was not the case. He had not said “Yes.” His Worship: Does a lawyer usually say yes? (Laughter.) !

Evidence of Defendant, Evidence of his share in the negotiations for the purchase of the car was given by John R. Wilson (defendant). In conversation with Newby he had been given to understand that the b.us belonged to. him .(witness), but the best he would get was damages. Witness was subsequently offered £lO to drop the matter. Nicholson a little later made a similar offer. Witness considered the car to be worth £BS. It had been offered to him for £IBO some 12 months before and since that time it had done little work. . Defendant, Wilson, continuing his evidence, stated in reply to Mr Watts that though he had estimated the mileage the car had done at 24,000 miles, it might have done 124,000 miles. He had given no consideration to' this aspect of the purchase. Witness explained that his various contracts provided for the payment of 6d a mile.. No written contract had been entered into. It was a verbal agreement by which he was to be given certain work over the Easter period. Mr Tompkins asked witness if he would have been prepared Lo pay more than £2O for the car. Witness replied that he had never been in a position to offer, more. Air Tompkins pressed for a direct

answer, which caused His Worship to remark: “You see,' a Scotchman is never prepared to give what he has not got.” (Laughter.) At the conclusion of Wilson’s evidence His Worship pointed out that to his mind, evidence had failed to show that any contract had been entered into. Witness was a most unsatisfactory man. “I cannot see that he has made any contract at all,” he added. Case for Defence. -j Albert Newby, defendant, explained the purchase of the car from Nicholson for £3O. He had bought it for the radiator, wheels, and spare parts. Tiie deal had been made with Mr Nicholson. Alexander Christie, manager at Newby’s garage, stated that following an inspection of the car he considered it was not worth £2O. It was-hardly worth repairing for service work. Stanley Hinton Paul, manager of the Hamilton branch of Reo Motors, remembered giving- delivery of the car to Nicholson. Witness contended that he had authority to sell the vehicle. He was under the impression that Nicholson ‘had an arrangement with Miss Wingate’s solicitors. The car was in very bad condition and it would cost fully £IOO to put It on the road. He had no dealings whatever with Newby. The foreman of the Reo Motors gaifage (Hamilton) characterised the car’ as almost a complete wreck. < William E. Nicholson, traffic inspector, Hamilton, who sold the car to Newby, considered the car of no value whatever for putting on the road. Its only value lay in the spare parts it contained. The magistrate said that after Newby had bought the car from Nicholson for £3O he had no title by which he could defend an action for possession, and he had acted wrongly when he declined to part with it. It was hard lo believe that the value of the car -was £BO, and from the evidence it was not worth more than £2O. With such an old vehicle it seemed improbable .that plaintiff could have earned the amount claimed for loss of profit. Judgment was given for plaintiffs for £36 ss, the amount pai l into Court by defendant, less cos's, £5 13s. Reo Motors. Limited, were discharged from the action.