MOTOE-TRUCK DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18249, 16 November 1922, Page 10

MOTOE-TRUCK DISPUTE.

ALLEGED WRONGFUL BESZURE PLAINTIFF NONSUITED. 'An action for damages for alleged wrongful seizure of a motor-truck came before Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court yesterday. The plaintiff waft James Smith Rollo (Mr. Field), carrier, of Auckland, and the join£ defendants were Gilmour, Joll, and Williams, Ltd., coachbvilders, of Auckland, and Newton King, Ltd., stock and general agents, of New Plymouth. Mr. Johnstone and Mr. Cocker appeared for the defendants. Mr. Field asked for an adjournment, stating that he had been furnished with an amended statement of defence, which necessitated calling fnssh witnesses. The defence now stated that judgment had been given in the Magistrate's Court against plaintiff for 4355 12s 9d, and that was urged as additional grounds for tha seizure. Mr. Johnstone said it was only by kearch that they discovered the new facts. Where there was an unsatisfied judgment his clients were entitled to seize the truck. His Honour refused the application. The case for the plaintiff was that he Snrchased the truck from Newton King, td., through Gilmore, Joll, and Williams, and gave the former a bilil of sale over it for £2000. He was to pay each month certain moneys to be received by him under a contract for conveyance ofl timber from the Waitakere hills, and no other sums ttfitil the completion of that contract. Newton King were not entitled to seize the truck in the event of default without vn-itten demand for money due. On July 29 without plaintiffs authority, the truck was taken into Gilmour, Joll, and Williams' garage. Plaintiff had not committed any breach of the conditions of th'j bill of sale. Mr Field said that under the agreemoat" defendants had received £621. PlainST had to stop carrying in April last, «S«.r te the bad weather and condition T& rcldl, and it followed that the -LJvwmt* were suspended. Plaintiff SSS for the return of the truck, or iStfvalue, £2000 He furtherjUgd £250 damages, on the ground that if the Sl- were lawfully seized it should have E? 3d! instead* of which *Mgg %%A nHPd it He further claimed £25U as the seizure had ,n----prFoT defence it was alleged that nlaiStiff was in arrears with his payments, 2nd further, the truck had not been S in proper repair. It weaned and S Mr. Johnston* Mked that plaintiff be *9b Honor awd H *» ***** to allow Uncase to go farther. It had resolved itself into a matter of law, and be would fraudi «* fMfiMS, 3r«fc fiOßt*, i