MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 281, 27 November 1936, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

DETENTION OF CAR CLAIM FOR RETURN ' ; j JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS | i Claiming a motor-car valued at £175 ! allegedly wrongfully detained by de- I fendant and £25 damages for detonI tion, Black and Jacka, Ltd., of New .' Plymouth, proceeded against Charles , William White, farmer, of Wanganui, in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday I before Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M. Mr. J. H. Sheat appeared for pla'ntiffs and Mr. A. B. Wilson for defendant. In outlining the case counsel explained that defendant had already 1 bought one car from the firm for £135 on which £B6 was owing, and in re--1 spect to which defendant was in arrears with his payments. He saw a 5 representative of the firm at Stratford and arranged for the purchase of ■ another car, leaving the first car with the plaintiff company. The repre- ■ sentative did not know that the arrears wer* owing on the fiti/. car. Other representatives of LT *rm came to Wanganui to see defendant and 5 pointed out that the deal was impos|sible and endeavoured to get the sec--5 ond car back. When they wanted to get delivery of the car defendant was not agreeable. The firm also telegraphed to defendant and he replied [ that he would hand back both vehicles if the plaintiffs would pay him £5O. Plaintiffs then took proceedings for the return of the car. It was contended that there never had been any agreement that would entitle defendant to retain possession of the car. It was alleged that possession had been obta.ned by misrepresentation to the salesman of the plaintiff company. Russell Kirkwood, motor dealer, / Stratford, said on August 31 last deI fendant called on him at Stratford to e inquire about a larger car. He said - he would get some money from his o brother and pay off the amount owing s on the first car. The company had to e get a third of the value of the car - in order to finance these deals. The r agreement was then discounted with a e finance company. That procedure had e been followed out in regard to defend- ‘ ant’s first car. Witness quoted the ” prices of two cars to defendant, the - one in dispute be.ng £lB5. In the ab- - sence of witness defendant got delivII ery of the car. When witness heard [ f what had transpired he rang the firm ; i, and sent a telegram to defendant. He n also came to Wanganui to see defendant. Defendant agreed to give up d possession of the second car. William, Elder, motor salesman, e Stratford, said that aefendant told him d at the garage that the price arranged g with tht previous witness for the car s was £175. He also said that he was to be allowed £l2O on the car he already

had. Witness at the t'me was not aware of the financial pos.tion in regard to the car. Defendant signed the customary papers and left his car and .took away the other one. Witness did not know that the first car had not been fully paid for. He contended that the sale was jiot fully completed until the deal had been accepted by [the heads of the firm. Harry Jacka said that no payments [had been made on either the Essex or I the Buick since August 31. I To Mr. Wilson, witness said he told White that the Essex could not be traded in at the price and that the Buick had been traded in at £135, not £175. Kirkwood, recalled, said that the Buick car was still registered in his father’s name and he had never signed any transfer. The Defence. Mr. Wilson said the evidence for the defence was somewhat at variance with that of the plaintiff. White said that pr.ces were never discussed with Kirkwood, but with Elder. Defendant asked if the price was £l7O or £175, and Elder said £175. The first discussion of terms also took place at that interview. Defendant said he told Elder that the Essex was not paid for. Charles William White, dairy manager, resid ng at Rapanui, said he was the owner of the Essex car that was traded in and went to Stratford on August 31. He went to the garage of Black and Jacka and asked if there was any information about a bigger car for which he was negotiating. Kirkwood said he had a Buick and probably defendant knew Kirkwood’s father’s car. It was not in at the itime. Kirkwood said his father was wanting £175. Defendant called back later and saw K rkwood, but the car was still not in the garage. The car was pointed out to defendant on the street, and subsequently defendant was taken for a run in the cat by Elder. Defendant said he was satisfied and it was suggested that they should sign up. Terms were discussed between defendant and Kirkwood, that £l2O should be allowed on the Essex and £5 monthly payments, pro--1 bably to be increased when defendant’s wages were increased. There was no discussion with Kirkwood on the hire-purchase of the Essex. Designed up and told Elder that [ the Essex was not fully paid for, ana that he was be ng •’.llowed £l2O on the ' \Essex. Defendant then took possesf sion of the Buick and left his Essex outside the garage. Three days later, ■ Jacka and Kirkwood called on him ■ and Jacka said that they could not let * the deal go through. Defendant said 1 he would increase the payments. ; Jacka conferred with Kirkwood and ■ when he returned, defendant said he ’ proposed to do no more in the matter, but get advice. • The magistrate made an order for 1 the return of the car by noon to-mor--1 row in default judgment for £175. Damages of £lO were allowed for ) wrongful detention with Court costs / £3 14s and solicitors’ fee £lO ss.