RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Cromwell Argus, Volume V, Issue 267, 22 December 1874, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

." Friday, December 18, 1874. (Before W. Lawrence Simpson, Esq., R.M.) ■> ■ <■ JUDGMENT SUMMONS. D, A. Joll> and Co. v. Richard Bateman. "Claim, £4O, judgment'for which had been obtained in 1872; Dofcndant was ordered to pay , : the amount into Court in weekly instalments of 20s each;. ■ ! '■"■' ::i UNLAWFUL DETENTION OF PROPERTY. . "W. Reid. Robertson u'E. A. Drury.— The 1 plaintiff asked that defendant might be ordered "'to-deliver-to him a certain deed, his property, - conveying three sections of land in the town of Cromwell from Michael Shanly to him (plaintiff). Mr W. Johnston appeared for plaintiff, and the defendant conducted his own case. ■• : - - . Robertson, the plaintiff, gave evidence to the effect that he .handed the document (or documents) to Mr J. R. Cowan, while he was practising in Cromwell. When Mr Cowan went away, • he told Rbbertson he had given the document to Drury, who would give it to him. Robertson asked Cowan what he owed him, and he paid • Cowan the L.2 2s Cowan said was due. Robert- . son saw the document in Drury's and • when he asked for it Drury agreed to give him ic; but afterwards he said he would give it to him only on payment of L.3 10s. Mr Drury oross-examined Robertson as to his ' title to the three sections, but Mr Johnston objected. '. In answer to the Bench, Robertson said Mr . 'Cowan told him he had given the document to Drury to give to hiin. hj Mr Johnston, in the witness-box, said Drury voluntarily came to him, as solicitor for plaintiff, . in Clyde, and said he would give ap the document whenever he arrived in Cromwell. This was the case for the plaintiff. The Magistrate would like to know from Mr •Johnston how it was intended to show illegal "Custody? The whole case, so far as he saw, must be against Mr Cowan. How could a clerk •be illegally in possession of a document entrusted to him by his employer ? Mr Johnson said that for the plaintiff it had fcesn aliown'fchat'Mr.Cowaahad been paid ail his

costs. Drury had the domiment, from Cowan, arid 1 could Helve no title to'ife', J Surely. 'tiofr going to he ; allowed td' hold the document del vAjinitiiiA. \ Robertson .'had Bworh the dbcui merit-was iti' Drary*y'bossessi(<h, , ''a'nd he "was told by TVIr Covyriri that Drury was ihsifrudtedto handl •it over;' and Drury, besides, voluntarily came, (forwardarid'bffered to''deliver it. "' '['■ ''"' , „ ,", i 1 Th 6 :' Yes, but''he.nnrjPbe' ( We .to answer that very easily. Let 16 ; be s admitted that Cbwari told'Robertson that Drury' was- ito give' hiriv the docuriient; but Cowan afterwards told Drury to keep'itfj do you mean to say-the clerk; JLs to proye that his master is in legal. possesßjqn? . ... ••••'" I Mr Johnston: Yes. We have proved we are 'entitled to ifc ; beyond all doubt; it is for Drury to prove that he is in any way. to m.■ nl j - An arguirient then ensued as to whether the case was brought in a proper! manner; ; The understanding arrived at was that-the oase was brought as a. complaint under the J.F. Act, and the Magistrate was asked, as a Justice nof the Peace, to make-an order faivihe relinquishment of 1 thedocument riM \Hr.i £)ankif/-. hj tin■' j' u> ' B. A. the who consented to being sworn, said he held a speoific order from Mr Cowan, fwhose managing clerk- he had been, to hold the document until L.2 8s Was paid. That he:had ever asked I Robertson for L.3 10s was a positive-untruth, The only, duty he had nowto'.perform,-~Rbbertsonrefusing, td pay the L.2 8s, —was to send the document ito Mr Cowan. Now that action had been -brought against him criminally, .he objected .to give up £he document, He' \vas well-known' on' ! the :l Pr'ess' throughout Zealand, and""it was an injury to him to have hiamame colony as,a defendant in a criminal action. If action had! been brought ciyilly, h© might have given up the document'without'any further trouble. ,'! .. • Irt giving judgment, the Magistrate said, with reference to' an objection raised by defendant as to .the.maimer pi ;tbe action, he,.thought, it- wa's. i£. had." .B.ut. he .was of .opinion that .Drury was jonp the proper person ,to, 6jfkj 0 De r livery was..made'-'tb Cowan iof the. docurijenti riot to Drury, and it certainly' was riot 'illegally in the possession*'of-'prury.' 'HVwould .dismiss the case without prejudice' arid without; 6osi;s. ~ I nk;r,u.i> nfi "" l . fTI . •-; '"Bank of 'New'South -Wales v. .Charles Golcloiigh. this case, decision in wbich had been postponed from last Court-day 1 ,- fch'e Magistrate held the Statute of Limitations' must be held to apply from the date of the delivery of-the safe at Cardronai and he must therefore ralethat the : point raised; by, the. defendant as t« the; .Statuf'e applying; was goodj.and valid. This, being his decision, ho,,had not, thought it necessary to go into the merits of the case. .Judgment,would therefore be .for 'defendant, ■'with professional costs. " ' ' ■' " '.'" ' r " ;