SINGULAR CASE ABOUT A CART.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 7015, 12 May 1884, Page 5

SINGULAR CASE ABOUT A CART.

At the Resident Magistrate's Court on Fri> day, before Mr. Jackson, R.M., the follow' ing case was heard :—

Petersen v. Moblet.—Mr, S. Hesketh for_ plaintiff; Mr. Keetley for defendant. This was an action to recover £21 Is tid, money paid for a cart by plaintiff to defendant, which cartj plaintiff had been compelled to restore to the owner, one Frederick Brown. The facts are as follows :—ln February last plaintiff, coach trimmer, bought a spring cart price £21. Witt said he was aotmg for F. N. Morley, Eden-terrace. Petersen paid his money, took away the cart, and was pursuing his avocation as a carter with it, when Frederick Brown of Mangere claimed the cart as his, and stated that he had never sold it to Morley nor authorised Morley to sell it for him. Petersen, plaintiff, made enquiries and satisfied himself that Brown was the real owner and not Morley, and then handed the cart over to Brown. He now sued Morley for the price of the cart (£2l) paid to Witt, Morley's agent. The evidence of Frederick Brown, the plaintiff, Petersen, R. H. Witt, the defendant Morley, and a boy named Wilson disclosed that Brown had ledt the cart to one Maitland, and that whilst in Maitland's possession he had sold it Morley for £16. Brown swore that he had never given Maitland authority to sell or deal in any way with it on his behalf. The evidence having been given, Mr. Keetley, for defendant, contended that the plaintiff must fail, inasmuch as he had not proved any express warranty of title; also, that before giving up the cart he should have given notice to Morley of his intention so to do. Mr. Keetley cited Morley v. Attenborough 3, j3x. 500 as tho leading case in support of his contention. Mr. Hesketh, in reply, contended that the law under such circumstances as those in the present case implied a warranty, and cited tho case of Eifcholz v. Bannister, 17 C.8., N.S., 70S, as amplifying Morley v. Attenborough, and clearly laying down that where by his actions or conduct or declarations the person selling holds himself out as the owner, there tho implied warranty of title exists. His Wor-. ship intimated that he was clear as to the identity of the cart sold to Petersen with the one which Brown swore to, but reserved his judgment until next Court day.