VENDORS’ OMISSIONS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 80, 4 March 1929, Page 8

VENDORS’ OMISSIONS.

FAILURE TO NOTIFY. MOTOR VEHICLES SOLD. On the grounds that the sale was not actually completed according to tlie negotiations entered into, and that possession had been taken by the buyer without proper authority proceedings instituted by the police for failure to notify the registrar of the sale of a motor-cycle were defended this morning by Arthur Norman Toms when the case was heard by Messrs W. F. Durward and D. J. Lovelock, Justices of the Peace. Mr Rutherfurd, who appeared lor defendant, made the submission that, technically, the breach of file regulations had not been made by defendant on account of the circumstances.' Defendant stated that he considered he had complied with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles’ Act. When the purchaser took the machine away, he understood that it was for a trial run. Possession could have been resumed at any time until the final instalment of the deposit arranged had been made. The Bench decided that ai omission had 1 ten made by the vendor, and inflicted a fine of £l, with 10s costs. No appearance was made by Helena Octavia Rowlands, charged with failing ■to notify of the sale of a motor-car. Senior-Sergeant Whifiehouse stated that a breach of the by-laws by the purchaser revealed the position. . A fine of £l, with 15s costs was imposed.