RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Kumara Times, Issue 2573, 20 September 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, September 19

[Before J. Giles, Esq., R.M.] M'DONALD V. KEECII,

This was" an interpleader summons arising out of a judgment obtained by defendant on the sth instant, for the recovery of £ls 11s, whereby certain goods supposed to belong to Somerville, but claimed by M‘Donald, were seized by the bailiff under a distress warrant. Mr Park for complainant, Mr M. Hannan for defendant.

George M : Donald, being sworn, said : I am a carter. I was in the service of William Somerville (judgment debtor). I engaged with him on the 22nd May. I worked for him thirteen weeks, to 20th August, at £3 per week. I did not receive payment. I lent him £SO during that time.—[Receipts produced.] I never received payment. I forced him to sell, and he sold to me—a dray, coach, express, house, stable, four horses, one set shaft harness, and express harness, double coach harness, chains, &c. The goods levied on are a part of what I bought. The sale was effected on the 20th August; the sale note was signed on the 22nd—[produced]. I did not know ho was in bad circumstances. Keech had told me he was going to sue Somerville for the money he owed him. I persuaded Mr Keech not to summon him, and I told

Somerville be would have fo settle with me as quickly aa be could : that led to this arrangement. After Keech got judgment, he told me he intended to seize these goods. I told him they were mine.

Cross-examined : The agreement for £3 a week was made on the 22ncl May. Somerville told me he had a banking account, which he did not wish to break, and he was accustomed to get money from his father. I advanced money when I could not get food for the horses. X did not know a judgment was obtained against Somerville on the day the agreement was drawn up. I told Keech not to summon him, and he (Somerville) would pay him as soon as he got monev. By the Court:! entered on the premises, have been in the house since, and have had sole control of everything-. I do not know where Somerville went; be has not been there nor interfered since. I had £lOl 14s when I came to Kumara.

Samuel Henry Clarke, being sworn, said : In May last, the previous witness came to pay me an account. I thought he was hard up, and told him not to mind at present; but he pulled out a roll of notes, and said there were over a hundred of them.

This was the case for the plaintiff. For the execution creditor, Mr Kitchingham first called

Denis Hannan, who, being sworn, said : I drew up the sale-note on the 21st August, it was signed on the 22nd. I told Somerville when he signed it that I was in Court and heard a judgment against him. I cautioned him. M'Donald was not present. William Upham, being sworn, said : I got a judgment against Somerville on the 22nd August. I have seen Somerville since working horses and dray, three days after the judgment. Cross-examined : I could not say exactly how many days. I have not seen Somerville since I took out a judgment summons against him this day fortnight; he did not appear. Matthew Davidson, sworn, said ; On the 25th August, a horse of Somerville’s had four shoes, and on the 28th another one had three; they are charged to Somerville. I did not know he had sold out.

Cross-examined; The boy said be came to get the horse shod for Somerville ; a boy brought it in; I think it was a horse hired off Peter Moore. I never saw Somerville since. The first time a boy brought a horse for M'Donald I would not do it, and sent him back—that was after I beard that Air Keech had levied on the goods. I think my brother had got something from M'Donald for mending a wheel. I supposed it was for Somerville; he had had our account, the amount of which was JJIS odd. I heard, before Keech got judgment, that there had been a bill of sale, or something of the kind. Nathan Seddon, sworn, said : I work for the-Westland County Council. Somerville was also working for them, day labour, with horse and dray. I engaged him. He worked up to the 30th August. I never saw him after that. He never told me that the horse and dray were not his own. Cross-examined : The horse is not in M'Donald’s possession, George Ingall, sworn, said : Somerville came to my store early on the morning of the 25th August. He wanted reins for his horse, and said he was working for the County Council. George Robert Rudkin, sworn, said : On the . 22nd August, Somerville came to Mr Al'llroy’s store to buy oats and chaff, and proposed to pay for them by an order on the County Council. On the 25 th he had more.

Cross-examined ; I afterwards heard McDonald had purchased the business and stock. I might have heard it about the end of August. Robert Gillon, sworn, said : McDonald told me he had no money, and I introduced him to Somerville. He afterwards told me he did not know what wages he was to get. I once oave him 10s. He said he had £1 wanted to keep that together. Alexander C. Campbell, sworn, said: Somerville carted goods for me up to the end of August. William Kcech, sworn, said ; On the 20th August I spoke to M'Donald ; I told him I meant to sue Somerville. He said 11 Dout do so at present.” Fie said Somerville had money coming to him from the Council. I heard of the sale on the 28th or 29th August.

M‘Donald, re-callod, said : Somerville had two horses on hire at the end of August. 1 also allowed him to take a horse.

The Bench summed up, stating that the evidence for the defence failed to disesiaWlish plaintiff’s right to the property, and therefore cave judgment to claimant for rest mat ion of goods, with costs of Court £2 6s, including solicitor’s fee, £1 10.

31‘DONALD V. FITZGERALD. This was a similar action in all respects, and judgment was given for plaintiff for restoration of goods seized, with costs of Court, £2 11s.