Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 134, 5 September 1868, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

BLENHEIM— Monday, August 30, 1868 [Before J. B. Wemyss, P. M‘Rae, and J, Doublin', Esqs., J.P’s.] JEKPIIEYS V. HUTCHESOX. Mr. Nelson, for defendants, applied to the Bench to amend the summons. An action had been brought against one Honeywell, and in satisfaction of the judgment two horses and other things named had been seized. He wished the other articles to be inserted so as to avoid bringing a second action. The money had been paid into Court on an interpleader summons, and awaited the issue of the present hearing. Mr. Jeffreys said the other things had not been seized, and he did not think another action would be tried after this was settled. William Jeffreys said Honeywell came to him in July, 1867, saying distress warrants were out against him, and sought to get an advance upon his horses. He preferred to buy them, and iu three cases seizures were prevented afterwards. He took him to Mr. Conolly, who wrote out a bill of sale (produced) for the two horses now seized. At the same time he let them to Honeywell on terms of paper produced, both agreements being made on the same day. The purchase was real and bonafi.de. Honeywell owed him a large sum before the transaction, and he wanted to keep him on his legs as well as he could, and so gave him more money to pay out the three judgments alluded to. He had never received any money to the present time in return. The debt was between £3OO and £4OO, Had it not been for the floods, he would have been in a prosperous condition. Made a fresh arrangement at the end of the eight months named in agreement. Did not buy the horses at the sheriff’s sale ; saw theta the same day; could not swear he did actually take possession formally. Honeywell brought them into Picton, and took them out again after making the agreement with me at Conolly’s office, as renting them from me. The neighbours all around knew of the sale. By Mr. Nelson : The assignment and the lease were signed at the same time. I have ridden one of them since, a time after, when the horse was leased to Honeywell. The money was not advanced to pay any mortgage. I do not know that the land would not now bring the amount of the mortgage. At the end of the lease I did not take possession. I did not register the till of sale. Many cases of the kind could be named, where horses are suffered to remain after being sold. I considered Honeywell liable for the return of the

horses. The money did. not go-the bailiffs, but was paid to Mr. Conolly, who had issued the summonses in the three ca«es. Got no receipt from the bailiffs. The sale was from Honeywell himself. John Honeywell, examined by the Bench, deposed that he was a farmer at Tua Marina; went to Picton in July, 1867, having business to do; and went to see Mr. Jeffreys; had two horses with him, and sold them to him; they were both cart horses, and the sums were respectively £lO and £2O; I owed him part of the money, and part he paid me then, this squared my account; the balance was paid to Mr. Conolly on my account; do not think it was over £2O. Just about that time there was an execution out against me, and Mr. Jeffreys advanced the money perhaps a week "before. He bought them, and saw them the same day. I took them back with me, having agreed to rent them. Different people knew they were Jeffreys’ horses. By Mr. Nelson : Don’t owe Powicks or Smith any money. Did not tell Hutcheson or any other creditor that I had sold the horses. Said 1 had lost all; did not tell Mr. Hutcheson at the time when I confessed judgment; did not lose them in the flood ; considered Jeffreys the owner from the time the agreement was made; Sergeant Adams had had them. By Mr. Jeffreys: Adams had taken the horses some days previous ; I got the horses when released. Mr. Jeffreys, in reply to the Bench, said it was his impression that it all took place the same day. Mr. Nelson submitted that the deed put in was really a bill of sale, and was under the Act of 1856, which was the same as that of 1867, which again was equivalent to the English Act, the preamble of which was to the effect, that all bills of sale and similar documents should be duly filed. Mr. Hutcheson had taken, with other creditors, every step to discover by the aid of his solicitor, whether there had been any deed filed. The result showed that the sale of the crops, and other things were filed, but nothing to show that the horses were. The intention oft he Actwas to protect the creditors, since it was provided that all bills of sale, and similar documents should be duly filed. The Bench called the attention of the learned gentleman to clause 7, which referred to stock on farms, but Mr. Nelson considered it did not apply. On the application of Mr. Jeffreys, the case was adjourned to Monday next, for the purpose of obtaining the assistance of Mr. Conolly.