SUPREME COURT.-CIVIL SITTINGS.
Wednesday. December 13
(Before His Honor Mr Justice Gillies.) MULDOOX V. JOHN "WALL.
I This case wae concluded late last evening. In summing up Hia Honor said the jury had first to decide whether there was an excessive levy, ana whether the bailiff was aware that it was excessive. The facts taken in evidence proved that the levy was excessive, but to find an affirmative answer to the first question the jury must believe that the bailiff was cognisant at the time of seizure that the value of the goods was more than sufficient to cover the debt. If the jury answered the first question in the affirmative they would then require to find, secondly, whether the defendant induced the bailiff by active interference, and contrary to the bailiff's judgment, to make an excessive levy. As to the third isssue involving the question of damages there was no evidence; The plaintifl
had evidently been put to some lose and inconvenience, and was entitled to reasonable but not fanciful damages. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, with £25 damages. On the application of plaintiff b solicitor, his Honor certified for costs. The Court then adjourned.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DTN18821214.2.11
Bibliographic details
Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3567, 14 December 1882, Page 2
Word Count
198SUPREME COURT.-CIVIL SITTINGS. Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3567, 14 December 1882, Page 2
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in