SEIZING A CAR

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 128, 1 June 1914, Page 8

SEIZING A CAR

TAXI-DRIVER'S TROUBLE^ A BAILMENT ENFORCED. The right of a person who has advanced money to seize a motor-cat under a hire purchase agreement is being tested in a caee brought before th« Suprome Court to-day. Tho plaintiff is William Henry Trc-ft-grove taxi-cab driver and the defendant it* John M'Gill. Suit is brought for £577 ns damages for the seizure, by 1-lie defendant, of the motor-car. Mr. A. Dunn appeared for the- plaintiff, and Mr. A. W. Blair, with Mr. R. Cook, for the defendant The ca&e was heard b;r hie Honour Mr, Justice Hosking. William Henry Trengrove, the plain* tiff, said h« was a moto.r expert, and drove a taxi'ca.b. In August, 1913, he decided, to get a car to go into business, j He negotiated with a Airs. Williams for th<* purchase ot a car, and went- to ihe defendant., whom he' asked to finance him in tho purchase of the car. He and the defendant went to Mrs. Williains'e accountant, tho defendant saying— "Don't tell him I'm going to buy tho oar for you ; just say you examined it for me." The meetings resulted in the price of the car being reduced from £150 to £120, and the purchase money having been paid, tho witness took d*. livery of the car. The defendant told, witness ho would have lo charge £50 for the loan, 'and witness protested that that was a great amount on a loan of £120. Defendant said : "It it my money ; and according to what you say we are getting a very valuable car, and I believe we are." Ho suggested that tho witness should, pay £2 a week ;_ and he would then soon get along. Witness .agreed to the terms, and a bailment \va# prepared a. week or two later. •After getting the car, the witness proceeded, he had it thoroughly overhauled and renovated. Considerable alterations and ( renewals were made to the engine, and the work cost about £25 and six weeks' work. A fair charge for it all would have been £60 or £70. He paid the defendant altogether £41. A little after he purchased the car, the defendant told him that he hail other money to lend, and if the witness could get other cars for him to finance, he would pay witness commission. Me introduced a man named Neish, who wanted to pay off some money due to Inglis Bros., and the transaction being completed, the defendant offered him £15, which he accepted. The defendant offered to pay cash or give- credit on the car for it, and he accepted credit. Another transfer was effected by witness, a Mr. Ross having a car for sale. Witness found a, Mr. Scott, who agreed to buy it, and was financed by the defendant. Wheii_ the car was paid for, Mr. Ross gave witness £5, winch he shared with the defendant. Tho defendant afterwards gave witness tho same com* mission as he had done on the other deal, £15. He overhauled the car, doing £10 worth of work, for which the defendant promised to pay. Early on the morning of sth March, the defendant came to the witness and said that witness was like the — — vest ot them. He said that witness owed him £16. Witness replied that the defendant owed him £40, and th© defendant said that witness had a, cheek to expect commission when the cars had come back on his hands. The car was afterwards taken to Magnus Sanderson's garage, and the defendant said "You've broken your agreement and it's my car: I'm going to detain it." Witness said he would pay for it outright next morning, and the defendant said he would tiot take the money. It was the best ca.r and the only- one he could make some money out of. Witness protested that the defendant was practically stealing the car and taking the bread' and butter out of his mouth. Witness told defendant he was entitled to written notice of his intention to seize the car, ' He afterwards got a letter from the defendant as 'a notice, stating that the carhad been seized because the rental was in arrear, and the agreement had been broken in ether respects.