OWNERSHIP OF CAR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19511, 15 December 1926, Page 17

OWNERSHIP OF CAR.

MACHINE SEIZED IN STREET. TERMS OF PURCHASE DISPUTED. SUDDEN ENDING OF A CLAIM. The dramatic production of a sale note resulted in the withdrawal of a defence in an action brought before Mr. Justice Adams in the Supreme Court yesterday. Albert Edward Hills, engineer, of Putaruru (Mr. Butler), sued G. L." Winger and Sons, motor importers, of Auckland (Mr. Finlay) and Walter Lionel Lincoln, plumber, of Putaruru (Mr. Fiizherbert), for possession of a motor-car and general and special damages totalling £lO6. The facts adduced by the plaintiff in support of his case were admitted by the defendants. On April 9of this year, Hills entered into a hire-purchase agreement with Lincoln for the purchase of the car and everything went smoothly until September 10, when Hills brought the car to Auckland from Putaruru and took it to Winger's garage to have some minor alterations and repairs made. There was some conversation concerning the ownership of the car, Wingers asserting that if, belonged to them as Lincoln had never paid for it. Later the car was seized by Wingers in tin; street and they refused to give up possession when demand was made. When Hills returned to Putaruru, he informed Lincoln of the seizure, when Lincoln said the car had been his and that ho had a full right to dispose of it. Lincoln did not say that any instalments ■were due on the machine. Mr. Finlay said that, in May, 1924, Lincoln agreed to purchase the car from Winger and Sons on a hire-purchase agreement for £485. Lincoln had another car which Winger and Sons were to sell for not less than £230, but the sale of this car did not affect the purchase of the new car. nor was it to be traded in against the purchase of the new car. The second-hand car was sold subsequently, and Lincoln claimed that it was to be a set off against the new car. That, however, could not be the case for in July, 1925; an account was sent to him showing £lOl lis 3d as instalments in arrear. Had the second-hand car been traded in, that amount could not have been owing at that time. This contention was further supported by an account forwarded in July 31, 1925, showing that the total amount then due on the car, including interest, was £319. In correspondence that ensued between [Winger and Sons and Lincoln's solicitors, [Wingera repudiated the suggestion that the second-hand car had been traded in,' and Ihey refused to accept a cheque for £25 which had been tendered as the amount outstanding. Lincoln was then notified that unless the amount said to be due was paid, the car would be seized. George Winger, managing director of Winger and Sons, was cross-examined at some length by Mr. Fitzherbert in regard to some,, alterations which had been in the hire-purchase agreement entered into by Lincoln. The witness said these were made at Lincoln's request and before he signed the document. He was emphatic that Lincoln's second hand car had not been traded in. When Mr. Fitzherbert produced the gale notb relating to the purchase of the new car, setting out that Lincoln was to pay £SO deposit and " the balance of £185" by instalments, Mr. Finlay said that must be' an end of the matter. He had had no knowledge of that document and in view of it the defence could not go on. The sale note definitely fixed the amount to be paid. Formal entering of judgment was deferred pending a conference between the parties as to Hills' taking possession of the car and as to the damages to be paid. His Honor remarked that he did no 1 think there was anything wrong in th» (alteration of the hire-purchase agreement.