SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2477, 15 March 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. Tuesday, March 14. NATIONAL BANK V WARD. Mr Q. Harper, in this ease, by consent, men. tioned that he had drafted an order for the taking of this case direct to the Court of Appeal, and intended bringing it forward on Friday next. LAND TRANSFER ACT AND BK CAVEAT OF B, EDB. In this ease, by o nsont, an adjournment was made till next banco day. BE MEMO. OF LEASE, HO ABB AND OTHERS TO T, FLAHERTY. A similar order, by consent, was made herein, WILKIN (CLAIMANT) V MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS (RESPONDENT). In this case Mr George Harper stated that the counsel on both sides had consented to an adjournment to next banco sitting. JOHNSTON V MCANULTV AND ANOTHER. In this ease Mr G, Harper applied for the payment of moneys into Court in this cause The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants to recover half the share of a crop of grain. Notice was given to Mendelsoa not to deal with the grain referred to, but he disregarded this and purchased the grain at 3s per bushel from defendant McAnnlty. A decree was obtained in the Supreme Court by default against the defendant McAnnlty, decreeing that the plaintiff, as administratrix of Johnston, was entitled to half the crop. The matter went before the Registrar, who reported on the case to the Court. He now came to the Court and asked that Mendelson, who had been made a defendant in the case, should pay a portion, at any rate, of the costs. Mr Garrick, for Mendelson, _ submitted that, so far from Mr Harper obtaining costs against Mendelson, he (Mr Garrik) should submit that Mendelaou’s costs should be paid to him, as they had actually protected the proceeds of the grain for the widow by holding it as against McAnnlty. He should object to an argument on the question of costs on a notice calling upon Mendelson to pay certain moneys into Court, After some argument, Mr Garrick said ho would consent to pay into Court half the proceeds of the crop at 3s per bushel, leaving the question of costs to be decided hereafter. Mr Harper declined to do this, because at the time of the decree operating wheat had risen to 3a sd. He was prepared to consent to Mr Garrick paying into Court half the value of the crop at 3s They were entit’ed to get from Mendelson exactly what they would have got from McAnnlty, which was the highest price ruling. After some discussion it was agreed between counsel that Mr Garrick should pay into Court half the amount of the grain at 3s per bushel, after deducting charges allowed, without prejudice to further proceedings. WATSON (APPELLANT) T BALL (respondent). This was a case on appeal from the decision of the Resident Magistrate at Sonthbridge. Mr Izard for appellant, and Mr Bruges for the respondent. The appellant sued the respondent in the Court below for J!3O damages for goods alleged to have been taken away by the defendant’s wife on board the ship Kangitikei to England by direction of the plaintiff’s wife, who went away by the ship. The defendant’s wife, it was alleged, removed the goods from the pi. intiff’s house to the custody of one Mrs Moorhead, and thence on board ship, without the knowledge of

the plaintiff. It appeared from the case that the plaintiff’s -wife left him. taking with her the goods mentioned, and the defendant’s wife assisted her in so doing, helping her to convey the goods to the railway station, and thence on board the ship for England. In the Court below the Justices gave a verdict for the defendant, and tie plaintiff in the Court below now appealed against the decision. His Honor could not see how this appeal could stand, becan-e there was not the slightest connection of the defendant with the conversion of the goods.

Mr Bruges said he should contend asapreli min try objection that the Justices had no jurisdiction, hence no appeal could Ho., His Honor overruled the objection, ’ but thought that under the circumstances cf the case Mr Izard could not hope to succeed in the appeal, there having been no conversion. The defendant’s wife had never converted them, because the plaintiff had posse" sion of them throtgh his wife all the time. The goods were not held by the defendant’s wife for her own use and benefit, bnt for the plaintiff’s wife, or in ether words the plaintiff himself. Mr Izard submitted that an unlawful act had been committed, and an action for damages would lie against all engaged in it. Bis Honor said that it was not an unlawful cction for a woman to assist another woman to remove certain goods from her husband’s honae.

Mr Izard would submit that the taking to tho defendant’s house of the goods was conversion. His Honor could not admit this at all. _ The goods were still in the possession of the plaintiff, though in England, because his wife had them. The removal of tho goods was not for the benefit of the defendant or his wife, but for the plaintiff’s wife, i e , the plaintiff himself. _ The case was a person assisting a run away wife to remove goods from her husband, bnt there was no case to show that conversion would lie as against the defendant and his wife. The proposition would be monstrous, that a wife removing a chattel without the consent of her husband would be conversion. Thera could be no conversion at all under the circumstances, because the goods had never passed from the possession of the plaintiff, being now in bis possession, through his wife. Mr Izard quoted a number of authorities to show that his contention was well founded, citing amongst others Hollins v Fowler, House of Lords cases; Hyatt v Bott, 9 Bxch. Reports. His Honor, without calling upon Mr Bruges, was of opinion that the appeal must be dismissed, because there was not tho slightest shadow of proof that there was any conversion on the part of the defendant and his wife. The defendant and his wife never saw the o intents of the box, nor dealt with them in the slightest. All they did was to hold the goods for the plaintiff’s wife, to enable her to take these goods. It was absurd to say that this was a conversion in any wav. So |ar as was known the goods were, when last beard of, in the possession of the plaintiff’s wife, that was in law in the possession of plaintiff. The appeal would be dismissed with costa. The Court-then rose.