Motor Deal – Denaby Publican´s Unsuccessful Action

August 1923

Mexborough & Swinton Times, August 18

Motor Deal
Denaby Publican´s Unsuccessful Action
Sunday Bargaining Claimed to be “Unlawful”

At Sheffield County Court on Tuesday, William Issac Gible, landlord of the Denaby Main Hotel, claimed from William Worth, 31, Daffodil road, Shiregreen, the return of a motor-cycle or its value, £61.

Mr. C. Donald, for plaintiff, said the cycle was purchased by plaintiff in March , partly for use in the business, and partly for the use of his son. The son was 19, and was an apprentice. On June 2 nd , the son saw an advertisement in the paper put in by the defendant, to the effect that a person desired to exchange a runabout for a motor-cycle. The son, unknown to his father, exchanged the cycle for the runabout. When the father saw the son bring the runabout in he said “Take it back. It is my motor-cycle”. The son was a minor. The contract was made on a Sunday and was, therefore, not lawful.

The Judge: Do you press that?

Mr. Donald: I certainly do. The main point is that he boy was not of age.

Plaintiff stated that his intention was that the machine should be for the use of the hotel instead of having two push bikes, and that the son could use it. When his son told him he had “swapped” his motor-cycle for the runabout he told him to take it back at once.

Cross-examined by Mr. W. A. Lambert, he plaintiff denied that he gave the machine to his son.

Ernest Gibbs, the son, said he exchanged the motor cycle for the runabout, and was told by his father to take it back. He did so, and was refused the motor-cycle.

By the Judge: When you “swopped” it did you think it was yours? – Yes.

Why? – Simply because I had had the use of the machine.

Any other reason? – No, except that it was registered in my name.

Defendant said plaintiff´s son came to his house, and after looking at each other´s machine they exchanged. When the runabout was brought back witness found the starting peg broken and both chains were off.

The Judge said the crux of the case was whether it was a case of agency or not. The boy never told defendant a single word about his father being the owner.

The son believed, and until this unfortunate transaction, had reason to believe, that he was the owner of this cycle and had a right to do as he liked with it.

His father bought it, registered it in his son´s name and he had the free use of it.

The bargain must stand. There would be judgement for defendant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.