A MOTOR CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19737, 13 March 1926, Page 12

A MOTOR CASE.

ALLEGED TRESPASS. tyres changed at show. VERDICT AGAINST DUNLOP COMPANY. (Thom Our Own Cobhkspo'-oent ' LONDON, January 26. An incident which occurred at a Glasgow motor show had a sequel in a case heard before the Lord Chief Justice m the King’s Bench Division, which resulted in the jury awarding £2500, damages against the Dunlop Rubber Company. . The plaintiffs were G. W. K. (Limited), motor car manufacturers, of Maidenhead, and the Associated Rubber Mamuactureis (Limited), and they claimed damages tor alleged trespass from the Dunlop Rubber Company, and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from repeating the alleged offence. The complaint was that on the first day of the Glasgow Exhibt tion in November, 1924, the defendants, by their servants or agents, removed italic! -ette low compression tyres, mamitac timed by the Associated Rubber Manufacturers from two G-JV.K. cars shown by the first plaintiffs, and substituted 15 res O) their own manufacture. Opening the case, Sir Patrick Hastings said it had been agreed between the two plaintiffs that G.Vv.K. (Limited) should fit their cars only with the tyres of the Associated Rubber Manufacturers (Ltd.). The two cars sent to Glasgow were shown bv agreement on Messrs Hislop Wood and Jackson’s stand. The Dunlop tyres, he said, were shown for a day or a day anu a-balf, and the plaintiffs’ tyres were then replaced. . Mr Thomas Warwick, managing director and chairman of the Associated Lubber Manufacturers (Limited), and chairman of G.W.K. ((Limited), in evidence said the first day of a show was always the most important, because it waslaigoly attended by trade and press representatives, and by the removal of the tyres they lost the advertisement that would have been obtained. When the cars camback to England five of the eight inner tubes were found to be Dunlops. their own tubes were obtained from the defendants five weeks later. DUNLOP TYRES SUBSTITUTED. Mr C. M. Stafford Northcote, submanager for Edinburgh of the Dunlop Rubber Company, called for the defence, said that by arrangement with Messrs Hislops, the stand-holders showing the G.W.K. cars at Glasgow, the bal-lon-ctte tyres on the cars were removed and Dunlops wore substituted. This was done the night before the show, and witness s belief was that Messrs Hislops owned tin cars. When a complaint was made the tyros were replaced. The Lord Chief Justice; What was the consideration to Messrs Hislops to permit the change of tyres? I—They 1 —They get a rebate credit note. How much?—l cannot say. Ln reply. Sir Patrick Hastings, crossexamining, the witness agreed that the defendants, whenever possible, had their tyres fixed to different makes of cars. The witness said that he had not consciously done anything dishonest or wrong in connection with the matter at issue. Answering his Lordship, the witness said they desired to get their tyres on ns many cars as they could at the Glasgow show. If, by arrangement with standholders, tyres were removed, they wore replaced at the end of the show. CUSTOM OF THE TRADE. Mr Albert Turner, for the defendants’ Glasgow branch, was asked by Lord Hewat if he did not think it a little odd that tyros should be taken from cars on exhibition. and other tyres substituted for the period of the show. Witness: No, my lord. It is the custom of the trade in Scotland.—(Laughter). Air Daniel Stewart Macphail, who was on the Dunlop stand at tire Glasgow Show, said in answer to the Lord Chief Justice that it was a common practice at Scottish shows to remove tyres during the show. “The Micbciin and the Goodyear people took sonic of ours off,” added the witness, amid laughter. Lord Hewart: Is there a kind of civil war going on?—Yes, sir,— (Laughter.) Was the object to get so many tyres of certain makes on the cars shown so that an intelligent spectator—if there were one —might say, for instance, that Dunlops were in a clear majority. Witness agreed that that was so. His Lordship: To produce that result you are willing to take great risks.' —I don’t know about risks, my Lord. A SORT OF SCRAMBLE. Mr Isaac Jenkins, a clerk, in evidence, said he replaced the plaintiffs’ tyres on the G.W.K. cars. Asked by Sir Patrick Hastings how many tyres of other makes they removed during the show, the witness replied, "About as many ns the Goodyear people took of ours.—(Laughter.) Is it a sort of scramble? They take off yours, and you take off theirs? More or less.—(Laughter.) Who came off best this year? — Oh, absolutely .Dunlops.—(Laughter.) Lord Hewart: Is there not a defensive battalion to prevent this removal of tyres? —No. Do you never come to blows with each other over ft? — No.

Or to argument?—No.—(Daughter.) Do yon fail to observe each other?(Laughter.) AN ATMOSPHERE OF BITTERNESS. Mr Norman R.irkott, K.C., for the Dunlop Company, said an atmosphere of bitterness ha I been introduced so that the jury would say they could believe nothing good of the Dunlop Company, whose methods were unfair, who were arrogant, and who thought they could swamp all competitors. Sir Patrick Hastings, KC., for G.W.K., Ltd,, and the Associated Rubber Manufacturers, Ltd., in asking for punitive damages against the Dunlop Company, said if their methods were such, could it be wondered Unit smaller competitors were swamped. In liis summing up, Lord Howart said Dnnlops bad said they changed the tyres of the G.W.K. cars with permission of the agent for the stallholders. Why had they not called that, gentleman? It was probably because he would have blown the defendants’ case clean out of court. The jury awarded G.W.K., Ltd., £SOO damages and the Associated Rubber Manufacturers, Ltd., £2OOO. Sir Patrick Hastings asked for judgment for the plaintiffs, saying he did not now press for an injunction against Dnnlops. Lord Idewnrt said he did not throw doubt upon the validity of the jury’s verdict, but a legal question bad arisen about the position of the Associated Rubber Manufacturers, Ltd., in the proceedings, and before entering Judgment be would like to hear arguments on that question.