A CAR SALE.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 222, 19 September 1929, Page 12

A CAR SALE.

Referring to the case Smith- v. Warde reported in last Saturday's "Star," I desire to draw your attention to an injustice done to myself and tho company I represent by the incompleteness of your report. Almost the whole" of your statement of'the case deals with the ex-parte remarks of the solicitor for the plaintiff. I do not ask you to publish my version of the case,as a .rejoinder fo the remarks,, of the solicitor 'for the plaintiff, but I do request that you complete your - report by giving, equal prominence to that already given to the evidence given by the plaintiff under cross-examination. The plaintiff admitted that he obtained the car, which was the subject of this Action, under hire purchase agreement in September, 1025, and that the agreement covering the car provided for full payment for the same in two years, by monthly payments. In tho ordinary course the agreement would have been satisfied in September, 1927, but- at that date he ,waa well in arrears in payment of his instalments. My company as owners-of the car allowed the plaintiff to have possession and use of tho same, without let or hindrance, until March, 1028, although under the agreement we had the power at any time to seize the car. The plaintiff further admitted that although he was so seri- • ously in arrears in his payments to us, 1 in March-or April,'.l92B, he purchased another' car elsewhere for cash. It was further admitted' by the plaintiff that : after he finally brought the" car back 1 to us the hood and tho generating dynamo were replaced. Your report lays • great stress upon my refusal to go into the witness box.. The position as dis- '

closed at the hearing was that 'until the 1 case was actually before the Court there ha£ been no.suggestion that I had any , personal responsibility in the matter. ■ The statement of claim was for the sum " of,, £118 alleged to be due to the plain- , tiff-by the company of A. Ernest Warde, '• Limited, • being the balance of moneys j owing for a car sold by the plaintiff to , the defendant in-..the month ;of April, , 1928, bdt during the hearing plain- , tiff's solicitor endeavoured' ;to show that j the car had not been sold to us, but had been left with iiii to sell on behalf of the plaintiff. The position as stated by me of course was that the car had never ceased to : be the property of my company, and any money which may have been.-paid to Smith was paid by the 1 company. -;-I, protested to the Court 1 against being named as the defendant, ( and pointed - out that the documentary f evidence put in by the plaintiff and a receipt put in by me showed that his I dealings had been with the company and i not with me personally. I was not even a shareholder in the company when pay- J ment was made. I do not know of any * reason why I should not be "game to give evidence," as Mr. Schramm ex- i pressed it. The plaintiff's solicitor had £ had weeks to prepare his case, whereas f I was required to proceed with my defence.at a moment's notice. I asked the 1 Court for an adjournment for a reason- 1 able time to enable me to prepare my j defence, but this was granted for one * day ' only. ' In the circumstances there was nothing for me to do but to leave 1 the Court to decide the .case on the 1 'evidence that had actually been placed < before it. J A. ERNEST WARDE. c In summing up in this case, Mr. Cut- < ten said Warde carried on business in 1 his own way and then he bccame manager or managing director of a company known as A. Ernest Warde, or A. f E. Warde, Ltd. "Then later, Warde « informs the Court, this company went f into liquidation. Subsequently ; another company was formed and that is at a present in existence. Warde has not t gone into the witness box and so has 1 not helped" the Court in the matter. It I is quite clear that plaintiff's application 1 to amend his claim is a justifiable one. The rule is that when a defendant does , not go into the witness box to give evidence the worst is presumed against ' him. Looking at the whole case fairly, r I am entitled to add another £50 to the claim. Judgment will therefore be o P costs £3 10/, witnesses r ±1 10/, and solicitor's fee £9 8/» j.