EDUCATION INTERPLEADER CASE.

Kumara Times, Issue 2334, 20 February 1884, Page 2

EDUCATION INTERPLEADER CASE.

The action arising out of the recent seizure of goods in the State Schools at Greymouth and Hokitika, in which the Sheriff of Westland was claimant, and William Arnett and Charles Seabrook were judgment creditors, was heard in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Greymouth, yesterday, before H. A. Stratford, Esq., R.M. Mr Purkiss, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for claimant, and Mr Jones (of Jones and Menteath) for the execution creditors. The Argus supplies the following report:—

Mr Purkiss submitted under sections 4 and 12 of the Education Act, 1877, aud also under section 24 of the same A.ct, that there could be no Board without a district, and that as the effect of the Westland Sub-division Act was to destroy the former Education Act and create two in its place, the school property of the defunct body necessarily ceased to be vested in it any longer, and became the property of the two new districts. These districts were brought into existence on Ist January, 1884, bub owing to certain unforseen causes there was not sufficient life in them to enable them to take possession of the said property. These districts, however, had undoubtedly been created while the former one had by the action of the Legislature passed out of existence and could no longer be possessed of State property. Mr Jones, in reply, raised as a preliminary objection that Mr Calders could not interplead on behalf of the Sheriff of Westland, and consequently was without any locus standi. (But no evidence was given to show that he was acting for the Sheriff of Westland.) He maintained that the mere fact of the goods having been laid claim to by an alleged owner—no matter whether rightly or wrongly—was a bar to the Government stepping in and taking possession of the goods as the rightful owners. The goods were not of such a nature, or in such a position, as would admit of the Crown acting in respect of them as Mr Purkiss contended they could.

The Magistrate said he did not think that he could alter his former judgment until he was shown to be wrong by a superior court; but he had not been called upon to review his own judgment and would not do so. He had already decided that the Westland Board of Education was in existence at the time the cause of action arose, and the circumstances of the case had not changed since.

At this stage Mr Joseph Petrie was sworn. He deposed as follows:—I am Chairman of the Education Board of the Westland district, and have presided over meetings of that body since the Ist January, 1884. In January last goods under control of the Board io. the State School—namely, school furniture, was seized by the bailiff of the Resident Magistrate's Court by virtue of a distress warrant issued out of that Court. On the Bth January last the Minister of Education by telegraph recognised me as Chairman of the Education Board of Westland. The Board was in existence, inasmuch as the School Committee under the Board exercised authority over the Greymouth State School. The Government has never taken possession of the Board's books or premises. Mr Purkiss in reply went on to show that Mr Carders had full authority for the position he took up in the case, but The Bench said that argument on that point was not necessary, as the Court would not go into it. As to the main issue, he thought that the Legislature did contemplate the creation of two new bodies, but he must hold that the Westlaud Board was in existence uutil the new Boards were properly created. He would therefore give the judgment:—The decision of the Court is that the claimant, Hugh Calders, agent for the Sheriff of Westland, has not proved his claim to the goods and chattels set forth in the schedule (Exhibit A) seized by the Bailiff of the Resident Magistrate's Court at Greymouth on ths 30th day of January, 188-1, by virtue of a distress warrant, issued out of the said Court or. the 28th day of January, 1884, at the suit of William Arnett and Charles Seahr >->k against, the EUuctvUou Board ui iUt>

District of West land.—With costs for execution creditors against the said claimant as follows :—One witness, £1 Is ; counsel's fee £3 3s.

Mr Put-kiss gave notice of appeal. Originally there were three cases of action, but only two were proceeded on. The second case was consequently ruled by the first, and £3 3s costs allowed. No warrant had been taken out in the third case.