BILLS OF SALE AND SEIZURE OF GOODS.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1293, 10 December 1886, Page 3

BILLS OF SALE AND SEIZURE OF GOODS.

An important case relating to the liability of sheriffs was heard at Napier on December 1. Thomas, a a sheep dip proprietor, in 1884 had as agent, one ."hepherd, who was sued for a balance, of account, judgment being given foi L 29- All but L 36 was paid prior to November, 1885, when Thomas caused a writ to be issued. The sheriff found the goods and chattels of Shepherd secured under a bill of sa : e for a loan of L2OO, part of which had been unpaid at ihe time of the issue of the writ The sheriff did not execute the writ, on the ground that the goods were not seiz ib'e, being covered by a bill of sale, and secondly because if seized and sold he considered they would not have more than satisfied the holder of the bill of sale Plaintiff alleged that it was the duty of the sheriff to execute the warrant, because, part of the debt having been repaid, Shepherd had a saleable interest which would have been realised, The defence relied chiefly upon the inviolj ability of goods protec ed by bills of sale, and also pleaded that the sheriff was justified in considering the value of the furniture insufficient to do ra re than satisfy the balance due on the bill. The Chief Justice, who tried the case

without a jury, said the law in New Zealand, interpreted according to the mode of procedure, was different to that in England, where an interest iu chattels under a bill of.v'sale could not be seized except in case of partners nip. In New Zealand it was the duty of the sheriff to seize such interest on behalf of judgment creditors, and neglect to do so would be at his peril. His Honor, however, gave judgment for defendant on the ground that he was fully satisfied that no loss occurred to plaintiff through non«execution of the writ. The evidence showed that Shepherd was hopelessly bankrupt, with no means, and if the goods held under the bill had been sold the proceeds would not have done more than have satisfied the holder of the bill. Costs were granted on the lowest scale. It was stated that this was the first time the question bad been raised in New Zealand.