Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DISTRICT COURT.

CH RISTOHUROH. Monday, June 21. [Before His Honor Judge Ward] The usual monthly sitting of the District Court opened at 11 a.m. TAUGHAN AND COHDNEB V SMITH. On the application of Mr Spackman this case stood over till next sitting. BDWABDS V CUDDON. On the application of Mr McOonnell, his Honor adjourned this caße until Thursday next owing to the banco sittings of the Supreme Court taking place on Tuesday and Wednesday. LOB'S TRUSTEES V BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES. In this case Alexander Cracroft Wilson and John Holme Twentyman, as the creditors' trustees in the estate of John Johnston Loe, were plaintiffs and the Bank of New South defendants. The action was brought to recover certain stock, goods, and chattels, consisting of horses, grain, &3., seized by the defendants, which the plaintiffs alleged were wrongfully seized by them. They further claimed the sum of £llO 9s 7d as damages for the taking and seizing by the said defendants of the stock spoken of. The defence was that the seizure of the stock, chattels, &c, was made by virtue of a bill of sale and mortgage of stock given by the said John Johnston Loe to the Bank of New South Wales the present defendants, and also mortgagees under the Land Transfer Act. The action was brought to test whether the property passed to the Trustee in Bankruptcy, or to the defendants urder the mortgage of stock or bill of Bale. Mr George Harper for plaintiff. Mr Garrick for defendant. Mr Harper briefly recapitulated the facts of the case, and stated that on the day of the filing in bankruptcy of J. J. Loe the Bank of New South Wales had taken possession, so that the bailiff of the trustees could not seize. For the purpose of arguing the case, counsel on both sides agreed that it should be taken as admitted, that the distraint on the goods, chattels, &c, had been made, and that the trustee's title should also be admitted. Mr Harper then proceeded to call evidence in support of his case. The case was proceeding when we went to press.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GLOBE18800621.2.11

Bibliographic details

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1973, 21 June 1880, Page 2

Word Count
355

DISTRICT COURT. Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1973, 21 June 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT. Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1973, 21 June 1880, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert