RESERVED JUDGMENT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIX, Issue 162, 10 June 1939, Page 7

RESERVED JUDGMENT

DAMAGE TO CONVERTED CAR. DECISION FOR DEFENDANTS. Reserved judgment, lias been delivered in a ease heard by Mr Justice Ostler, at the last session ot the Supreme Court at Palmerston North, in which Spencer Clarke and Co.. Ltd (Mr L. G. Laiireusen) claimed £O4 Its (id (as the cost of repairs to a ear) Ironr Goodwill Alotors, Ltd (Air AA'. Heine, AYellington) from whose

garage the ear was removed by ai employee without authority, and dam aged. His Honour lon ml for defend aids.

After outlining the fads, in which he stated that a hoy of 18 years ol ago employed by the defendant company deliberately retrained from locking a door at night and then later re turned to lake out. the delendant company’s ear. His Honour stated that in his opinion the company could not be held guilty in respect of the appliances it provided for the secure locking of file garage. Those appb* uncos were reasonably sullieient to prevent the theft of ears from the garage by night. “1 nni further of the opinion that defendant company was not negligent in employing the hov. Buchanan, ir the first place, or in continuing to employ him down to the time that he converted this motor-ear.” said His Honour.- “J to was a seemingly respectable youth, 18 years of age. and he performed his work satisfactorily. The company had no knowledge of hi previous conversion ol a car, and had no grounds for suspecting his honesty. Nor do I. think defendant company wa.s negligent in delegating fo him the duty of locking up the garage every evening, lie was old enough and seemingly reliable enough to he entrusted until that duty. AA hen lie broke into this garage at night and converted this ear to his own use if was clear that tie was not acting within the scope of his authority and therefore defendant, company would not he responsible.” His Honour quoted lengthy authorities in support ul his bclicl and at the close of the judgment staled: “For these reasons I hold that defendant eompanv is not liable for the deliberate and fraudulent net of its servant in leaving the garage dour unlocked, and that it- discharged the onus ot proving that if was not guilty of any negligence ill breach ol its contract to "take care of plaintiff company's ear. Judgment will therefore he for defendant, company, with costs aeeordj M ,r to scale oil liio amount, claimed, with witnesses’ expenses and disbursements.”