Feilding R.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XV, Issue 241, 16 February 1894, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court.

♦ (Before Mr Brabant, 8.M.) The following cases were' heard yesterday afternoon after we went- to press. . _ l£M. Keen v. It. Somerville; claim, £1 lis. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. To be paid within seven days or in default six days' imprisonment in Wanganui gaol. B. Parr v. W. Baker ; claim, £1 14 a. Mr Reade for plaintiff, and Mr Sandilands for defendant. The money was paid into Court, and, on the application of defendant's solicitor. His Worship decided to consider an application for a re-hearing at the next sitting of the Court. D. Millenv. F. Pope; claim £26 ss. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff and Mr Richmond for defendant. This was a claim brought by plaintiff for recovery of the value of certain stock, the property of W. C. Boyd, a tenant of plaintiff's, sold by defendant under a bill of sale. The stock were distrained .by plaintiff as a security for £15 for rent due, aud for grazing. Plaintiff had warned defendant's representatives that the stock in question were not to be removed till paid for, but they were taken away without his authority. David Millen deposed : He owned the section formerly owned by W; C. Boyd and rented the honse to the latter for 10s per week ; the horses and cow were to be grazed for Is 6d per week each ; on the 22nd of May last year this arrangement "was made; the stock were removed on December 18 ; Boyd had never paid anything to him for rent or grazing; on the 16th December two men went there and Boyd told witness they were after the former's stock; witness told these men they could not remove, the stock without paying for. them; when he returned frqm his "work on Monday night the stock were gone ; did not authorise anyone to' remove the stock. Cross-examined: Boyd had nothing to do with the ground and only rented the house: Boyd did bushfelling for witness, and he was paid for this at the rate of £1 per acre ; , saw Foster for the first time on Saturday night, December 16th ; and at that time told Foster and the other man that they could not take the stock without paying for it ; when Constable Tuohy went np bn Sunday morning witness was asked what rent was due and told him what the charge was he was making ; did not ask Boyd for the rent prior to the stock being seized ; did not know the stock belonged to Mrs Boyd ; had not heard there was a bill of sale over the stock ; paid Boyd ±'108 for bushfelling ; witness was a few pounds out of pocket through backing bills for Boyd. Re-examined ; In consequence of Smith (the storekeeper) taking away three cows made an arrangement with Boyd that no more stock was to be removed till witness' claim was satisfied. ' W. C. Boyd deposed: Sold section 18 X, Manchester Block, to G. Millen, who sold out to his brother, D. Millen ; made an arrangement with the latter about May 22nd last for renting the house at 10s a week, and ls Gd ahead for grazing the cattle ; never paid' any. of the rent. Millen told witness the stock -was not to be removed till the grazing was paid; there was not sufficient money coming from the bushfelling to pay. tiie rent; the bill of sale held by Mr Pope was to protect witness from other small credi- > tors ; there might have been a few pounds i due to Mr Pope ; but he was not yet entitled to it; no paper was given to him and he did not know why the stock was taken ; the cattle were bought by him and paid for out of his wife's money. Cross-examined: IJave not paid any rent to Millen ; the cattle were paid for out of 'liis wife's money but witness claimed them ; Mr Pope's claim- was to bo settled by bushfelling; had been . leasing a section from Mr Pope at a , rental of £40 a year ; had leased .the section for certain periods from Mr Pope previous to making the arrangement with Millen; ran the four horses sometimes on Mr Pope's section and sometimes on Millen'B ; might have had some stock on Pope's section when, the inventory was taken; told Foster he could not remove the stock ; Millen had told witness he was going to distrain the stock in satisfaction of the rent. By the Bench : Was to use the stock 1 while they were grazing and after Millen had distrained them. His Worship remarked there could not be any lien over the stock if they were to be used by Boyd. Mr Sandilands contended that it was open for Millen to allow Boyd to use the stock and still have a lien over them ; Millen may have said that Boyd could use the stock but could not remove them permanently. Boyd had no interest in the land and he had no authority to give defendant or his agent permission to enter plaintiff's land to seize the stock, and Mr Pope had no right to trespass on Mr Milieu's land. Mr Richmond, in reviewing the case, i submitted they were not agistment ' stock, but were the property of Mrs t Boyd, and should not have been removed , from the section she leased from defendant. Frederick Pope deposed : Leased a section to Boyd, but received no rent ; witness refused to allow Boyd to continue the lease without security ; got a bill of sale from Mrs Boyd, who had leased the section for six months ; at this time the four horses were running on his property, and a cow was running ou the road ; Boyd had the section for over twelve months before the bill of sale was given ; Boyd told witness he was paying os per week for the house. Cross-examined : The money referred to in the mortgage alleged to be cash lent was for rent due ; no money was lent; the money was due between Mr and Mrs Boyd, each owing him. six months' rent ; received a notice from plaintiff demanding £26 5s ; understood plaintiff objected to the removal of tiie stock ; still had them iv his possession, aud had tried to sell the horses by auction ; had sold the cow. J. T. Foster deposed : Had authority to seize stock from Boyd and proceeded to execute the warrant on December 16; saw Boyd aud told him he had gone to take the horses and cow ; Boyd replied that he " would take nothing off here" ; witness said he had possession and was going to stop there ; Boyd did not give any reason why witness should not remove the stock ; Boyd then went to- see Millen, and when they returned together witness showed them his authority. After Boyd and Millen had a talk for about an hour, the latter returned and said he would not allow any stock to be removed ; there was no mention made at this time about rent ; first heard about rent from Constable Tuohy ; when re. fused permission to remove the stock sent for Constable -Tuohy, who went up on Saturday ; On Monday seized two horses aud a cow off Millen's land, also a trap and harness ; seized a mare off the road, and a mare and foal off Mr Pope's section. Cross-examined: Told Boyd he had come to take possession of the stock enumerated in his list ; at the time he thought it was Boyd's land. Mr Richmond contended that when \ defendant went up all the horses were ou liis property. There was a certain amount due to defendant for rent and ho accepted the stock as security. "Boyd had no authority from Mrs Boyd for their removal for graziug. They were not agistablc because there /was yq agreement to show they were agisted and were, therefore, not distraiuable, Mr Sandilands submitted that Mr Boyd was ayting aa to wife's agent witli

her consent. Millen had asserted to Foster the stock was not to be removed. There was no seizure of the cattle on the Saturday, as Foster admitted not having moved them, aud did not take them away till Monday. Millen wished to give Boyd a chsuce, as he was pressed, and that was why the latter was allowed to use the horses although they were distrained. Mr Sandilands quoted authorities to show that a landlord was entitled to seize stock for rent. His Worship : They were said to be agisted stock and that is different. Mr Sandilands, continuing, said that it was stated before Foster that a claim was made for reut by Millen. There was an agistment of the stock amounting to lis sd. Defendant's bailiff was informed of this fact before he seized the stock on Monday. Had the land been Boyd's he could have given Pope power to enter the land, and as the latter had received notice restraining him from seizing the stock lie had no right to ssize them, and he was guilty of trespass. Pope sets up his claim by a document, as against Milieu's right of a landlord. Mr Pope could not possibly have any right to enter the land assuming the bill of sale to have been good. His client claimed for trespass on the land, and it was very clear defendant was not wanted. It was also clear an understanding existed between Boyd and Milieu, and that the stock wore on the property of the latter when the bill of salo was given. His Worship said he would give judgment next Court day, March Ist, as he would like to consider the authorities quoted. Ellen Boyd laid an information against lier husband, Wm. Bo}d, for assault, and desired to have liim bound over to keep the peace. Defendant was convicted of assault, and ordered to be bound oyer to keop the peace for twelve months, in his owu recognizance of £20 and two sureties of £IQ each. Messrs A. Parr and G. Richardson were accepted as bondsmen.