CAR SEIZURE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIX, Issue 283, 14 November 1929, Page 7

CAR SEIZURE

NAPIER COURT CASE WAS THERE A SALE OR NOT 7 INVOLVED POSITION REVEALED The seizing of a motor-car alleged by the plaintiff to have been sold under hire-purchase agreement while the payments made were contended by the defendant to have been for the use of the car, occupied the attention of Mr A. M. Mowlem, S.M. at the Napier Court this morning. The case was a claim by Henry Walter Hall, insurance agent, of Dannevirke. against Tasman J. C. Gurr, insurance branch manager, and the National Mutual Life Assurance Ltd., for the return of a car or payment of £l5O, also chattels valued at £25, £46 owing for commission, and £95 damages for detention and such further relief as the Court might consider just. The defendant Gurr counter-claimed for the sum of £29 4/-, being a debit balance of £l4 11/on ’account and £l4' 14/- for hire of the car from August 1 to September 19 at £9 a month. Mr. T. H. G. Lloyd J of Dannevirke, appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. W. Hislop for the defendant Gurr, and Mr. C. C. Sorrell for the defendant company. Mr. Lloyd, in opening the case, stated that the National Mutual Life Assurance had taken a somewhat curious attitude as the contract of employment was purely between the plaintiff and Gurr. As the result of oral negotiations the contract was signed on July 5, Hall receiving certain remuneration. The practice was that 80 per cent, of the first year’s premiums was paid in commissions. Hall receiving 70 per cent and Gurr 10 per cent. Hall, received a memorandum of instructions and stationery for correspondence. It would be shown that Hall was an agent of the second defendant although he was selected by Gurr. Hall was an undischarged bankrupt. Hall learned from Gurr that cars were obtainable from the company and it was agreed that Hall should take over a car used by a former agent, which he was to pay for by instalments of £9 a month. The car was recently seized and it was contended by Gurr that he had bought the car from the association under a hire-purchase agreement and deniedthat he had given any agreement to Hall about the car because it would have been impossible for him to have done so.

Mr. Hislop submitted that there was no agreement for purchase.

LUMP SUM PAYMENT SUGGESTED.

Mr. Lloyd, proceeding, referred to correspondence between Gurr and Half which referred to vouchers for hire-purchase instalments on the car. In January last Hall wrote asking what amount was still owing on the £254 <•’:■- price agreed on for the car. As far as he could remember his instalments totalled £137. Hall explained that he had an opportunity of disposing of some property at a loss, which he would do if it would pay for the debit on the car. Gurr explained that he could not release the car because it was mortgaged to the association and it would have to bo settled in cash before a sale of the car could take place. Later, because Hall could not get on too well with Gurr, he handed in his resignation. Gurr persuaded him to withdraw it which he agreed to do but, owing to Gurr failing to carry out certain promises, the resignation stood. On September 19 Gurr actually seized the car together with a number of tools, this, at a time when Hall’s account wag in credit £46. It had been submitted that Gurr was unable to give title, but he had contracted to do so. The company had acquiesced in the seizure of the car which, plaintiff held, he was entitled to use. In view of the seizure of the- car plaintiff was greatly handicapped because the month of September being the end of the financial year, he was exception ally busy.

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE. Plaintiff then gave lengthy evidence reviewing the terms of his engagement, and leading up to the business relating to the ear. Plaintiff said Gurr represented the ear as his own, and plaintiff was to pay by monthly instalments. If ho left the company he was to take ths car and go on paying the instalments until it was his. Witness then referred to the trouble he had had over obtaining his commission. Gurr, he said, had power to do business himself, in which case he would take all the commission. If the work was done in conjunction with an agent, then the commission would be divided on a fifty-fifty basis.