OWNERSHIP DISPUTED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18889, 11 December 1924, Page 12

OWNERSHIP DISPUTED.

HIRE PURCHASE SEPARATOR.

SOLD WITH FARM PROPERTY.

[by telegraph.--own correspondent.]

HAMILTON. Wednesday.

In the Hamilton Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. H. A. Young, S.M., William Bolton, farmer, claimed from 1). McL. Wallace, Ltd., merchants, tho stun of £25, or tho return of a separator, and £5 damages, for alleged wrongful seifcuro of the machine. Mr. A. L. Tompkins, instructed by Mr. L. R. Russell, appeared for plaintiff, and defendant was represented by Mr. W. J. King. It appeared that plaintiff had purchased a farm as a going concern from one Morrison. Among the. fittings included in the selling price was a separator. At the time of the sale plaintiff was not aware of the fact that Morrison held the separator on the hire purchase system from D. McL. Wallace, Ltd. The payments having fallen behind, the defendant company seized the separator. In evidence, plaintiff said he bought the farm on the complete understanding that everything was clear of mortgage or encumbrance

At this point Mr. King said he was prepared to admit that defendant was a bonafido purchaser. The deienso was that D. McL. Wallace were the owners of the separator. It was futile to contend that because of tho recent Act tlio title should be vested in Bolton. Before plaintiff could succeed he must show a better title than D. McL. Wallace and Co. He would have to prove that, the particular section of the 1922 Act conferred a title on him. Morrison, having no title in (he separator, surely could not transfer a title to Bolton. Mr. Tompkins pointed out that the execution of a hire purchase agreement over the separator had not been registered, and was not. therefore, legal. Counsel maintained that Morrison had acted in good faith, on the presumption that he hail really bought the machine. Judgment was reserved.