COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21086, 10 February 1934, Page 7

COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE

A "( O.NVKKTKD" MOTOIM \K I An unusual coarse to c;i>.Ui t.' comj pensation for an owner of a motor- . car which was damaged when it was ! unlawfully converted, was adopted by !Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., in the Magisj trate's Court yesterday. Mr Moslcy i convicted a man on a charge of 1111I lawfully converting a motor-car and i fined him £3 and costs, at the same | time ordering him to pay £i!o by way of compensation, as part of the damage, to the owner. The defendant was William Harvey McCallum, who was charged with the unlawful conversion of a motor-car to his. own use on January .", with negligently driving a car, driving without; ;a license on Page's road, and with | failing to report an accident invoiv-1 | ing an injury. I I Sub-Inspector G. B. Edwards said , I that on January 8, the motor-car iva.-i I left at a garage at which defendant | worked for repairs, whicn were to be i finished on the following day. On January 9. a constable saw the j same motor-car in a seriously (Jam- ; aged condition in Page's road. It. was I being removed by workmen from an-, other garage. The matter was investigated, and it was discovered that tne defendant had been driving the car when it crashed into two tramway poles. Defendant finally admitted that he took the motor-car from the garage to test it for knocks, and decided to drive with some friends to New Brighton. On the return journey he swerved to avoid a cyclist, and struck the poles. The defendant had no authority to use the car, according to the owner. Mr Perry. Foolish' Action Mr A. B. Hobbs, who appeared for j the defendant, said that McCallum had . been foolish in the extreme. He started I off with the idea of testing the car. j after working on it at the garage in | the evening; but he went further than j he should have, when he took i his assistant and two women friend? for a drive to New Brighton. He had i made one .statement to the police, but had decided later to make another, correcting certain details. Mr Hobbs said that the owner of the car would be unable to secure compensation through insurance, and in I order to protect him. it would perhaps' be possible to impose a penalty sufti-, cic-nt to meet some of the damage, on i the charge of negligent driving, the | penalty to be paid to the owner. It was | pointed out that the legislation allowed such a step to the extent of £SO; on the charge of conversion, the amount | payable to the owner of the car was j limited to £2O.

The owner agreed to such a cour.-c being followed, provided he could secure £3O as compensation, and the return of the wheels and tools from the damaged car. which, he said. was otherwise useless. Mr Mosley said that the court could not invoke section 30 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as Mr Hobbs had suggested, because it was necessary for the charge to involve injury. Thus the amount which could be ordered as compensation was £2O, on the charge of conversion. In that case it would be left 1o the owner to make a civil claim, it he thought it necessary.

McCallum was convicted and fined £3 and costs on the charge of unlawful conversion, and ordered to pay £2O by way of compensation (part only) for the damage of the car. On the other three charges defendant was convicted and discharged. He was given 14 days in which to pay the sum.