RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XIII, Issue 1566, 12 August 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Friday, August' 8. ■ (Before C. Whitefoordy ,Esq.^ R<M.;: ; CIVIL OASES. John Beidy,. James Godfrey. — A claim of Ll3 lls for timber supplied at,Ahaura. The defendant' did not dpqy [the; amount of the debt, but said there was aWajjree-' nienti made _that he was to be allowed, a 'certain time in 'which to pay, and this, time had. not yet expired., . ... This was denied, and after taking evidence on the point,' his Worship gave judgment for' tlie plaintiff for the amount claimed, with COStS. : ;■: ,; '. ;- ' ;. -, ; ; ■„,-,. Thomas Plascott v. Alice Cunningham. —A judgment summons for L 9 3s. The verdict was given at Reefton in January. 'On a distress warrant being issued, the amount of L 2 15s was paid. The defendant was examined as to her ability to ' pay. She said she had been aWifferent places — Westport, the Lyell, and Greymouth — bufc did not obtain employment. An order was ; made that 103- per week should be paid. ... John Wright v; Thomas Walker.— A fraud summons for L4 l2s 6d. The defendant was ordered to pay' the amount within one week, with costs.

I H. Wick v. C. Classen, re Doyle claimant. —This was : an; interpleader to determine the ownership of certain.land and farm; r stock, , with .dwelling : house, situated or. the Amuri road,' and seized by the bailiff to satisfy :a j judgment of LlB,. obtained at the Resident Magistrate's Gourtj Ahaura. The, bailiff under warrant of distress .seized 50 acres ;o£ land with house and out-buildings thereon ; 26 head of cattle, poultry, pigs, &b., also a share in a head-water-race at; ' Orwell Creek. Denis Doyle •''claiined''the r>l prdperty ; as trustee under a deed- of settlement made iii favor of Anne Classen by her husband, Charles Classen, on Bth .October, 1872. This case was 'of considerable importance, as the judgment in it will have a bearing upon the decision in several others, in which claims for large amounts are made on the property seized. Mr Staite appeared in support of the original verdict, and Mr Guinness for the claimant. After examination of the bailiff by Mr Staite, Mr Guinness proceeded to argue that the seizure was illegal, and produced the deed und er which it was resisted. The settlement was made after a. former, sale of Classen's property at the suit of David Magoffin. Classen was imprisoned for Magoffin's debt, when he (Classen) declared himself, bankrupt. He was afterwards released on the [withdrawal by Magoffin of all proceedings, arid by an order of the Courfci 'Protection was granted to him, which had not since been withdrawn, and according to the Bankruptcy Act protection once given never. can, be. withdrawn, except by a special order of the Court. Mr Staite objected ; if the defendant wished to avail himself of the provisions of the. Bankruptcy Act, notice should have been given to the plainti previous to the hearing' of i the case :in the Resident , Magistrate's Court. His Worship, in allowing the objection, refer^edto a remark of ; his Honor Judge Ward in disposing of a case which came before him in Bankruptcy at Greymouth, that there was ■a' similar flaw in the Act through which a bankrupt; on' neglecting to comply with some, slight form, might remain a bankrupt for ever. Mr. Staite said that the case his Worship! alluded to was that i of ; Wildridge and Clough, biit the omission was .important. The notice of the adjournment of the meeting was not gazetted, therefore a trustee could not be appointed. This point being disposed of, Mr Staite ob-: jected to the admission of the deed as evidence, on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped^ and also that for .-the purposes of the Stamp Act the, value 6f the property mentioned in the deedshonld be assessed and set forth cleariy. If this were not done, the amount of the stamp duty required to legalise the 'deed; could not be ascertained. This assessment did not appear in the deed, arid the. instrument was therefore inadmissable ..■ Mr Guinness replied, and contended that as the deed had been through' the hands of the Commissioner of Stamps, it was sufficient that ' after his examination and assessment of the value of the 'duty, stamps required, the deed 1 should be taken as evidence and in compliance'" withthe Stamp Act. ThW Cbiirt; must receive ' the deed, arid if necessary tak" c evidence as to the value of the property, afterwards. Mr Staite said the adoption, of this course by the Court would not better the claimant's position. The obj ection now taken as to the iriadtnissibility of the deed would not be weakened by allowing the other side ; the advantage of offering further evidence as to the value of the' property. It was necessary that an ad valorem duty of 5s for every LIOO worth of property should be affixed to every similar document, and, in order to ascer-

tain this value, an assessment should be made, which did not appear on the face of the deed. His Worship ' said he must take the deed as it appeared "before him, irrespective of the question 1 of the stamps. He would, however, make a note of the objection, but he never saw any one who could pretend to thoroughly understand the Stamp Act. The case then proceeded :— Denis Doyle isaid he! was the person mentioned in the deed. He took possession of the property when Classen went to Orwell Creek, and lived on it ever ; since. The evidence . went on to show how the property was acquired, who received the proceeds of it,' and to prove other matters, principally ,. with /reference to the disposal of ;a sum of^ money received from Europe by "Classen, The object, being to s teat,. the, validity,, of. ,the deed of

settlement ; the evidence on the other points was not of interest. After the solicitors on either side addressed the Court, his Worship reserved judgment for eight days. Magoffin v. Same. — This was an almost similar case. The amount claimed was .L7O. The plaintiff went specially-f or the , share in the water-race at Orwell Creek mentioned in the deed; : The evidence as to the title to the property was diferenfy for -it - appears the " Bhare was always the property of Classen, it never having been transferred in the Warden's ; Court. | A verdict was for the. plaintiff, \ and the bailiff was' ordered to sell the ' share. . . . Mark a"nd Lock v. Same.— Judgment was confessed' '■ in > this case for L 95, with costs; .'::'';'■•'.■ -.; ;; .-. C '-I ..-' :.- ,! In .Drennan, Bros, v., .Godfrey, and Alcorn v. Godfrey, j udgmerits were confessed, with costs. . .