SALE OF IMPLEMENTS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 279, 22 November 1913, Page 9

SALE OF IMPLEMENTS.

HIKE-PURCHASE SYSTEM. TEST CASE COMTXUED. Considerable further evidence was heard at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon and this morning by his Honor Mr. Justice Cooper in the case Booth, McDonald and Co- v. the Official Assignee, in which the plaintiffs claimed the value of certain agricultural machinery which was ordered from them by a bankrupt under the hire-purchase system, and was subsequently seized for the benefit of his creditors. The plaintiffs sought to establish that the hire-purchase system in relation to agricultural implements was so well known that no one who directed his mind to the matter would be sure beyond doubt that the implements belonged to the farmer, and not to the firm that had sold them. Dr. H. D. Bamford appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Selwyn Mays for the defendant. The evidence of plaintiffs* earlier witnesses (numbering about sixteen), most of whom were business men in various country towns in the Auckland province, was to the effect that the hire-purchase system as applied to farm implements was well known to them as a very general custom, and that if called upon to lend money to a farmer they would not at once assume that the latter was the owner of the implements on his place. This was corroborated by L. Thorburn, manager of the Electric Construction Company, Auckland, F. B. Barrow, a Te Kuiti business man, and a creditor in the bankrupt estate in question; Wm. Garrett, Auckland manager for Mason, Struthers and Co.; Frank Wiseman, a member of the firm of Wiseman and Sons, saddlers: R. A. Dexter, of Dexter and Crozier, motor, engineers; W. T. Christie, stock auctioneer at Auckland for Dalgety and Co.: H. H. Pitcher, managing director of the Gane Milking Machine Co.; E. E. Wing, of Wing and Co., ironmongers; and August Riech, manager for IL M. Smeeton, Ltd. H. M. Smeeton, called by Dr. Bamford, said that he had sold separators and other appliances to farmers on time payment. He explained, however, that he had not sold under agreement, and there was no condition that the good 3 remained the property of his firm until the . whole of the purchase money was paid. For the. defence, Mr. Mayes called Norman C. Matthew, proprietor of the "King Country Chronicle," Te Kuiti, who stated that during the seven years he had lived ill the township he had never heard of hire-purchase in relation to •implements. Further evidence to the same effect was given by Hugh D. Cook, George Linehan, Mrs. Emily McDonald, J. Black, J. J. Young, D. McCorkindale, J. Erickson. Wm. McXaught. and Sidney Dransfield, all of Te Kuiti, and creditors in the bankrupt estate tinder review. In cross-examination nearly all of them admitted that they had never given the question any consideration before the present case came up, but they had believed that farmers could pet implements on extended credit by giving bills of sal over them, or by some similar arrangement. The idea" of hire-purchase, however, had never entered their heads. D. J. Young, of Te Kuiti, agent for Messrs. Reid and Gray, stated that he was not in the habit of selling implements to fanners on hire-purchase. He had never sold except for cash or ordinary credit. Tol ice-Sergeant Matthew (formerly bailiff at Te Kuiti), and M. McCormiek, bailiff at Hamilton, stated that they had never in the course of their duties learned of the hire-purchase system of selling implements. The case was adjourned till Monday.