SEIZURE OF CAR
TERMS OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FAILS,
(By Telegraph.—Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, 2nd Dec. A case in which the plaintiff claimed compensation for the alleged wrongful seizure of a motor-car was heard ;at the Supreme Court to-day, before Mr. Jnstice Stringer. H. H. Cook and Co., Ltd., land agents, plaintiffs, claimed that Herbert Henry Cook, a director of the firm, agreed to purchase from the defendants, W. L. and H. E. Shiel, of Dunedin, a motor-car for £535, taking in another car for £230 and giving two promissory notes for £152 10s each for the balance. The defendants later seized the car, claiming that Cook had broken the terms of the hire purchase agreement under which they claimed the car was sold. Cook alleged he had signed a second document not knowing its contents, and asked for the return of the car and compensation. After lengthy evidence had been heard, the parties came to an agreement by which the plaintiffs would pay tho first instalment and give security for the second.
His Honour said Cook was not entitled to compensation, and must pay his own costs.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19261203.2.42
Bibliographic details
Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 134, 3 December 1926, Page 7
Word Count
189SEIZURE OF CAR Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 134, 3 December 1926, Page 7
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Post. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.