MAGISTRATE'S COURT, KUMARA

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 7 November 1901, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, KUMARA

(Before D. McFarlane, Esq., S.M.)

Wednesday, November 6th.

A. Moretti y. J. Dinan,, claim for £9 103', Mr Murdoch for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 15s 6d.

Wm. Duncan V. Richard Barret, claim for £7 63. Mr Murdoch appeared for plaintiff. Judgment for amount c'aimed with coats, J. A. Murdoch Vi J. O'Brien, olaim for $1 16s'. judgment summons. Order niide, execution stayed for 14 days. Ross and Glendenning v. J. McKinlay. Interpleader case. Mrs M, Mulvihill v. Boss and Glendenning. This is a case f where Ross and Glendenning as execution creditors seized the goods of James McKinlay in satisfaction for a deb f j of £73. Mrs M. Mulvihill through Mr Murdoch, her solicitor entered an interpleader, to stay the execution of the sale, claiming a bill of sale for £4.0 advanced in cash. Mr Bear a appeared for **oss and Glendenning. After some legs), argument, Mr Murdoch S" ailed James McKinlay, who gave evience as to granting the bill of sale to Mrs Mulvihill for the sum named at his j own request. By Mr Beare, witness dealt with several other firms besides Ross and Glendenning. Left off getting goods from the latter in May last. Don't remember getting any goods from other firms since that date. Started business with a credit of £25, Had debts, personal ones of about £6O The greater part of the £4O borrowed was to pay a private debt. Never signed a promisory note at the time of borrowing the money; but could not say why three days was added to the time for repayment of loan. Expected to be in a position to pay debts in three month's-. In addition to Ross and Glendenning's debt I owed about £4O. Value of stock seized was about £SO or . £6O; At the,time of the loan none of his business creditors were pressing. Was pushed for money for other purposes. His present debts including tho loan amounted to about £l9O. Had this seiz ure rot taken place Christmas coming, ' witness would have been able to satisfy all creditors. He made no profits duriDg the winter months. J. A. Murdoch gave evidence as to McKinley coming to him and Mrs Mulvihill granting the loan, Crosr-examined by Mr Beare. Did not ask McKinley at the time of taking the bill of sale if the goods had been paid for, but he told me £IOO would pay all his ' debts. Wag quite satisfied their was sufficient security for the loan. Mrs Mulvihill gave evidenoo as to granting the loan. She bad no business - relations with McKinley at the time of the loan, Paid the cash id Mr Murdoch, and kept no account of the item. Never received a promissory note or any document ' of acknowledgement for the cash given. James McKinley recalled, valued the stock in June at about £IOO. Did about £IOO worth of work since June, and got about £SO of it in. The Btock sold in the meantime would be about £3O. Mr Beare addressed the Court contend- ' ing that the bill of sale was valuc'ess, as McKinlay had debts at the time exceed- . Ing the value of the stock that the bill covered. Mr Murdoch addressed the . Court in favour of plaintiff, and asked , that an order be made to have the goods . handed over to her. His Worship in granting the order asked 'for, remark d that in his opinion Ross and v Glendenning had acted harshly with M'Kinley seeing that ho was in difficulties. They might have waited some time longer before taking the extreme s'ep of taking his goods. Order made that the good be handed to Mrs Mulvihill costs allowed £3 lis,