OWNERSHIP OF A TRUCK.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 69, 21 March 1916, Page 2

OWNERSHIP OF A TRUCK.

SEQUEL TO PROSECUTION. " : FOR ALLEGED RECEIVING. ' COUNSEL WANTS TO "TOSS." ! A sequel to the recent charge against 1 J. E. Wheeler, agent, of receiving a hand truck, knowing it to have" been -stolen, came up in the Police Court this morn-1 ing before Mr. F. V. Frazer, S.M. The original case was thrown out by the I grand jury, and the sequel to-day was an interpleader action by Wheeler, for whom Mr. H. H. Ostler appeared, and! William Hem-y Conway, a carrier, the complainant in the police case (Mr. F. Lowrie), both parties seeking to obtain | 3so>sessipn .of the tr.iitk, which ,had. remained in thg heAds bf the police. Mr. Ostler BpSiied his case iv nu unusual fashion by saying that as the value of the truck was only 30/ or so it would shorten matters if Mr. Lowrie; whose sporting proclivities were ■undoubted, Would agree to toss for it, the loser to buy the winner a new truck. Mr. Lowrie replied that his own sporting proclivities were not in question. His--client -was the man, and T his client naturally would prefer to go on.' ' ' ' , Esideneaon the lines of the police case •was given by Conway and several other witnesses, for the purpose of identifying the truck as one purchased by Conway and subsequently repaired and altered by biin. James Norgrove, formerly in the employ of Wheeler, stated that the truck was removed from the wharf to Wheeleris premises with his (witness') knowledge, but in cress-examination adinitte_d that at the time Wheeler "was •absent, being sick. Later on Wheeler sacked ban, -and in order to get even ■with him, he -told Conway that one of iis trucks was in Wheeler's hands. Other witnesses, under cross-examina-tion, admitted that trucks were easily mistaken, and that different firms had to iige (•stinctive paint on that account. Mr. Ostler said that he could bring an independent witness to show that the track was marked with Wheeler's name at the time it came back to him, showing thai it .was not. Conway's originally. Consray had stated that he had paid 21/ for it, but the standard price for such tracks was 14/. He did not intned to go further, having -shown that his client had acted in good faith, having -the best of reasons fox believing the truck to be his. Con-ay was awarded possession of the "truck, against Wheeler.