Magistrate's Court.

Manawatu Herald, 10 September 1895, Page 3

Magistrate's Court.

(Before R. h. Stanford, Esq., S.M.) Tuursday, September 5. W. E. Gascoigne (claimant) v. R. Hannah & Co. (execution creditors). This -was an interpleader case. Hannah & Co. had received judgmetffitWhe Magistrate's Court at WeJsfogoQ!n' against Edward Gascoigne, of Shannon. A distress warrant- was issued upon the judgment and the bailiff made a seizure of goods at Gascoigne's store at Shannon. W. E. Gascoigne, a son of Edward Gascoigne, claimed the goods as his and paid £15 into the Magistrate's Court at Fox ton, to abide the result of an interpleader action. , : W. E. Gascoigne, in his notice of claim stated that of the goods seized he had bought part of them which he specified at the value of £1 11s f 6d from Scott & Co., of Wellington, in February, last, that he had bought a chegapryaTued at 16s 8d from John SmitftyyE Moutoa, on Bth May last, and ffiat he had bought the re-. mainaer'of the goods valued at £14 16s 8d from Hodgson Brothers, at Wellington, at various times between February and 2nd May last. Mr Edward Gascoigne was allowed by S.M. to conduct the case for his son, the claimant. Mr Ray appeared lor Hannah & Co., the execution:ereditorß. Constable Gillespie and John Smith having given evidence for the claimant, W. E. Gascoigne was called; who stated that the store and premises were his, he having bought them from the Trustee under his father's assignment, and that all the goods in the store were his. Alfred Henry Gascoigne confirmed his brother's evidence, and stated that his brother began business at the store on 21st January last. Mr Scott's evidence taken in Wellington, was then read. He said he supplied the goods to Edward Gascoigrie on 4th February, in the usual way... Thai W. E. Gascoigne had never been in his office, but that - " W.E*" had been put before the name 1 " Gaßooigne " in Scott & Go's books at a subsequent time at the requejtof jtbttiat)ieiY. . MisWa\iOl<sgson's evidence .also taken in, Wellington, was read. He stated that lis firm on 11th January last supsli£d goods to Edward Gascoigne upon*' his bill, and that no goods had been supplied since that date either to. Edward or W, E. Gascoigne. ■:.-: Mr, Ray argued that the claimant bad railed. to make out his claim as be had not proved that the goods were - purchased as stated in his notice. Bmith's evidence was of no value as lie produced no invoice or receigjutf any written evidence of the sale towY. E. Gascoigne. Scott & Co. p*dved that the goods sold by them had been supplied to Edward Gaecoigne in the usual way, and Hodgson Brothei-3 proved the goods supplied by them were sold on 11th January to Edward Gascoigne and were paid forby Edward Gascoigne's bill, and that they bad supplied no goods since either to Edward Gascoigne or W. E. Gascoigne, and that althoughalterations had been made jjp ScotfcSrCo's. and Hodgson Bios'. Ixwks ; these alterations had been 4nade at the request of Edward Gasfne and could not alter the ownerof the goods. Mr Ray insisted the orws probanM was upon

the claimant to prove the allegation stated iti ( his notice of claim 1 , and having tailed to do this* the execution creditors Were entitled to a judgment in their favour. The S.M. said ! I find tiotißider. able difficulty in determining this question. The general evidence is Conclusive that the business is the property of \V. E. Gascoigtiei That he had done his duty in notifying to bis merchants that he ar. I not his father Was carrying on the biisitiess. An old creditor oi his father, instead of going in with the rest of the creditors had laid by and put in a chance execution into the son's I store. The execution was not justifiable at all. The bailiff walks into the store and sets aside a set of goods which were not the property of the father at all. The difficulty has arisen out of the stupid way in which the son has made out his notice of claim and it almost raises a question of fraud on the face of it all. The execution creditors prove the goods were bought by Edward Gascoigne but do not show that they were not bought by him as agent for his son. I give the good 3 to claimant with usual costs. Mr Ray asked for leave to appeal, and the S.M. at once granted leave stating that he had in his judgment shown his hesitation in determining the question.