OWNERSHIP OF OIL.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20088, 18 November 1930, Page 4

OWNERSHIP OF OIL.

SEQUEL TO PIMEXTAL'S FRAUDS. TRCSS ASSOCIATION TELrOSAK.' WELLINGTON, November 17. On echo of th© recent criminal casa tti which "Mecca" oil figured was Ix.-urd in the Supreme Court, when an originating summons was brought bofore Mr Justice Reed to determine tbe ownership of oil valued at between £SOO and £6OO. The question at issue was whether oil purchased by Morton Parker Piinental in tho course of his transactions had passed to him or whether it was still owned by the Soconv Ply., Lid., Melbourne. Much of the U-ga! argument "as directed towards the interpretation of the following clause in the contract: "'Shipment /of the goods is to constitute delivery, and each shipment is to be deemed as a separate contract." Mr Treadwell, with him Mr James, appeared for Begg and Wakefield, judgment creditors of Pimental, Air' E. Parry for Coulls, Soincrville, and Wilkie, also judgment creditors of Pimental, and Mr E. 11.. Hadfield tor Scconv Pty , Ltd. It was stated by Mr Treadwell that there were no cases in e.i.f. cases in which such a term "shipment of the goods is to constitute delivery" appeared. His Honour : Have you searched American oases? Mr Treadweil replied (hat the contract was. an English contract, and was prepared in New Zealand. After hearing: legal argument, his Honour reserved his decision.