ABOUT A PIANO

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 259, 3 December 1929, Page 9

ABOUT A PIANO

INTERESTING JUDGMENT IN NAPIER COURT. AGA1NST HASTINGS CONTRACTING FIRM. Mr A. M. 'Mowlem, S.M., in tlie Napier Magistrate's Court this morning, gave his reserved decision in the case lecently heard in which J0I111 Cou-'t, Ltd., of Auckland (Mr H. B. Lus1.) proceedeu ngainst tlie Hillen and Howard Construction Co., Ltd., (5ir M. Jt. Grant) claiming to recover the sum oi £72 ,9s, tlio value of a piano allegec'.l v wrongfully distraincd lor rent. It will 'be remembered that evidence was given for the plaintiff conipai.v at the liearing to tlie efi'ect that the piano was sent down 011 seven days' trial at the rcquest of a man named Keen, who at the time was resident 111 one of tlie defendant compan/h: properties in Napier. A liire purchase agreement aecompanied the piano, tli 3 understanding being tliat tlie inst" 1 ment was to he returned after sev.nj days if unsatisfactory, hut if it was satisfactorv Keen was Lo sigu the hue purchase agreement. Tlie piano was not returned, hovever, neither was the hire purch ise agreement signed by Keen. On making inquiries, the plaintiff compa.iy could get 110 satisfaction hy letter from Keen and 011 a rcpresentative hcn.g sent to Napier he found that Kemi had disappeared out of tlie town owing rent and ihe defendant _ company as his landlords, had distrained for rent, and seized tlie piano and liad it scld at pnblin auction. Tlie plaintiff company claimed tliat the defendant com pany's action in sclling ihe piano to defrav the expenscs due in rent was wiongful, since it was claimed tind the instrnment was tlie property - l the plaintiff company and not of Kocn. The Ylagistrate. in his judgmen', commented tliat tlie faets of Ihe matter were that the piano was^ sent hy the plaintiff company to Keen on March 8 last. No evidence was given ar to tlie dale of its arrival in Napier, hut assuming that it was delivercd to Keen on March II and 32 it was seized on March 25 for rent thie hy Keen. Plaintiff company had received 110 communication of any kind from Keen after tlie arrival of the piano.

"J am of opmion tliat the property in the piano at 110 time passed from tlie plaintiff company to -Keen and that therofore it never hceame the p>opcrty of the tenant and was eonsequently not distrainable," said tlie Magistrate. "As to allegations of delay on the part of defendant compaiw it appears to me that at the crncial times no delay occurred. As to damagos it seeiiis to me to he clear that the damage claimahle in such an actim is the value of the chattel at the time of seizure. There is no evidence to show that ihe piano was in any other tinui good order and condition on arrival. I propose therefove to aecept Ihe evidence as to its price at the time of dclivery and to onter judgment fcr the plaintiff company for £72 9s, with costs.