OWNERSHIP QUESTION.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 135, 9 June 1932, Page 11

OWNERSHIP QUESTION.

WHANGAREI PRINTING PLANT CLAIM AGAINST JOURNALIST. COURT ORDERS RETURN. The unusual spectacle of a defendant in a civil action conducting his own case, in opposition to counsel, was seen in the Supreme Court yesterday. The action was one in which Cicorge William Venables, of Napier, administrator of the estate of the late Mrs. Miriam Athol Rachel Venables, his daughter-in-law, sued Victor Ree, journalist and printer, of Whangarei, for the return of printing plant, and damages for wrongful detention. Ree denied that the plant had been wrongfully detained.

I Counsel for plaintiff said the plant [ was at premises in Vine Street, Whangarei, known as the "Argus" Printcry. It was formerly the property of Mrs. Venables, who died in December, 1930. In January, 1031, defendant bought the goods from deceased's husband, giving a bill of sale. Plaintiff, who was father of Mrs. Venables, had guaranteed her banking account. lie was granted letters of administration of her estate in November, 1931. He now claimed the return of the goods on the ground that the husband's transaction was not valid in law. Plaintiff, giving evidence, said that at the time of her death, Mrs. Venables was tho owner of the printing plant nt ■ Whangarei. He knew that in 1927 she received money from the sale of property in \ ictoria. She invested £500 in wit-ne-sof.' business in Napier, and received it back in 1928, when he sold the business. Mrs. Venables and her husband bought printing plant at Wellington, Waipukurau and elsewhere. Her husband (who was witness' son), had no money, and the plant must have been bought by his wife. The. plant was transferred from Otahuhu to Whangarei, where witness guaranteed an overdraft of £300 on his eon's business. All the property concerned was the property of Mrs. Venables and nobody had a right to sell it. The business was worth about £400 as a going concern. An "Extraordinary Position." Mr. Justice Smith: Might it be put this way; that your son did not quite play the game with defendant? Witness: I lliink the mistake was on the part of the solicitors who allowed the sale to go through. Replying to defendant, witness said his son went bankrupt in 1924. He now had his discharge, but he might still have been undischarged when he went to Whangarei. Witness took out letters of administration to protect himself and the bank when he learned that his son had been mulcted in £200 damages on account of misrepresentation. His Honor: And now you will not stand for your son's misrepresentation, but try to put it on the defendant. It is a most extraordinary position. Witness said he could not stand for tho misrepresentation. Replying to further questions by Mr. Ree, he said if his son had-claimed that the plant was his own property it was not true. Mr. Ree: I put it to you that the plant is not worth more than £150. Witness: It .might not produce more if sold piecemeal, but that is a very different matter from what its real value is. "A Mere Technical Ground." llis Honor said it did not greatly matter whether tho son had sold it as his own property or not. The main point was that plaintiff had approved of the salo of tho plant as a going concern, and knew it should be sold at once. It was not until an action for misrepresentation was taken that plaintiff took out letters of administration. Now he sought to defend his claim on what was a mere technical ground.

Counsel for plaintiff said Mr. Venables had nothing to do with the sale. The property did not belong to hiin, but to tho deceased. His Honor: That does not alter the main facts. Addressing the Bench, defendant said the case was very simple. He purchased the business in January, 1031, from Vernon Venables, whom lie looked upon as the rightful and legal owner. Witness found that there had been misrepresentation, and took action against Venables, obtaining the full amount claimed, namely, £200, and costs. Giving evidence, defendant said he paid £100 cash for the business, and gave a bill of sale for £250. When the claim for misrepresentation was heard, expert evidence was given that the plant was not worth more than £150. Witness was still in possession and carrying on the business. The difference between the amount of purchase and damages awarded was about £20. This had been offered, but was refused. Evidence was given by Vernon Venables, who admitted signing the bill of sale. Asked whether he was the owner of the property, witness replied: "I refuse to answer that question, as it is likely to incriminate nie." He also refused to answer when asked whether he had made such a statement in the Magistrate's Court. He had obtained his discharge from bankruptcy about three years ago. A Bona-fide Purchaser. His Honor said he must rule that the property belonged to the estate of the late Mrs. Venables. Defendant had certainly acted as a bona-fide purchaser, and no penal damages could be given against him on the ground of trespass. All order would be made for the return of the goods, or, alternatively, damages of £150. Plaintiff was also entitled to the profits, if any, which had accrued from the business since it was taken over, after allowance had been made to defendant as remuneration for his services, Plaintiff was allowed costs on the lowest scale.