OIL ENGINE DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 71, 24 March 1915, Page 4

OIL ENGINE DISPUTE.

PLAINTIFF nonsuited. A somewhat complicated e;=e b«npied the attention of Mr. C. 0. Kettle; S.M., at the Magistrate's Court, yesteTV ' day afternoon and again to-day, in" connection with the sale of an ofl'■/.'. engine and the hull of a hunch. 7 The 7 ." plaintiff was George Franklin. Claytwi (represented by Mr. Newton), -and; the"!"■' defendant, Peter A. Smith (Mr. flajf nail), claim £74. Plaintiff was forsbme time in the employ of defendant, who ie la mechanical engineer. Plaintiff agreed that defendant should supply an oil engine for his launch on the hire pur-, chase system. The engine was dtdy supplied, and plaintiff paid £40-in cash; also one monthly instalment of. £8, ts well as £2 2/ towards the next" one due. The price was fixed at £130 lea trade discount, £10. Plaintiff'was hi defendant's employ while the., launekv was built. About August in. the,follbw-V" ing year, plaintiff asked defendant 'tol .''<: sell the launch and engine for- £23).; Defendant sold the engine for £100, and ? afterward the hull for £105. ltwa* ; ; alleged that plaintiff told: defendant - in August, that he could not keep up his payments, and asked- that. engine be taken back. Piainttiff had 1 . • paid £50 2/, arid was liable then for ; £53 18/ in addition for hire: 7 -' . The defence was that' pi : -t, t lull the engine from the Ist of* member," 1913, to August, 1014, and tlkt daring ■ that time he should paid £64, * hire, but- only paid. £lf> 2/. As-rplaintiff'.. 'k{ took- -back—the ""enjane; - and sold the hull on plaintiffs. behalf,:, deducting from the sum received what wasdue for hire. " • '*".',' Mr. Newton claimed it must be'showu there was a termination of the hiring and taking over the engine again. Thedefendant had been paid aU arrears- dai'-- . out of the sale of-the hull of and had also got his engine bacfc .;fflm ■ plaintiff's evidence was clear that - the launch and engine were sold - on hie jfe: half. Mr. Newton claimed -there, wee- 7 ; no distinct act of taking "back-the engine. : The plaintiff never understood that.'-(tap T hiring bad been, terminated. _ ■ ■_■ Mr. Bagnall submitted plaintiff must be nonsuited because he had not proved there was any variation of --the. agreement. ""'" _ Mr. Kettle said plaintiff had net'Yproved that any verbal arrangement r had been made, altering-the written agreement entered into. Plaintiff" being unable to keep up his payment*, the agreement provided for the owner hi Testrme possession onder such cirenßstances, and that was done. He hid .. sympathy with plaintiff, who, after, paying £53, had lost the whole lot. "\ Still ; there was no fraud or unfairness about the agreement which plaintiff had entered into. In the face of defendant* absolute denial of such verbal agreeand taking the surrounding circumstances into' consideration, plain-.-;v tiff must be nonsuited. Judgment wai - also given for the defendant tot Aha counterclaim of -£5 15/, and cost* neM.. ■:•.- allo*ned defendant. ; ' I