DISTRICT COURT.- Nov 8.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume II, Issue 141, 10 November 1871, Page 5

DISTRICT COURT.- Nov 8.

(Before His Honor "Wilson Gray.) Barnard O'Neill v. John Eoss and P. A. Connolly.—To recover the sum of £l5O for illegally seizing and selling certain properties belonging to plaintiff. Mr. Hertslet for the plaintiff, Mr. Eowlatt for the dofenee. With the consent of the Court, the name of P. A. Connolly was struck out, plaintiff consenting to pay him any expenses to which he had been subjected in consequence of the bringing of the action. It was sought to be proved that the property had been legally and fairly purchased by plaintiff from one Wm. Mardlmg, at a time when he was in difficulties, for the sum of £33 15s, and that possession had been given at the time by Mardliug aud family quitting the house and plaintiff taking possession. It also appeared that from the time of alleged purchase (December, 1869) till the property was sold under Warrant of distress against Mardling,

be (the late owner) had been living in the house as tenant of O'Neill's at a weekly rent of Is. The evidence further proved that a previous warrant had been issued against Mardling, and that the bailiff (Connolly) took possession of the property as Mardling's, but that upon it being claimed by O'Neill the bailiff withdrew—O'Neill satisfying him for a man's holding possession until the case could be heard ou interpleader and the question of title settled ; that the case was heard on the 24th October last, before H. W. Eobinson, Esq., K.M., when, ftisupp -rtofhis title, O'Neill produced a certain document which was decided by the Bench to be an absolute bill of sale, and objected to by Mr. Rowlatt as being insufficiently stamped. Mr. Kowfatt's objection was sustained, and O'Neill nonsuited. The same document was for a second time produced, and again objected to by Mr. Kowlatt. His Honor, _ however, decided to reserve that point, and proceed with the case on its merits.—For the defence, it was urged that the sale to O'Neill was a fraudulent one; that possession had not been taken ; that the rent of Is a week was a vei'y suspicious circumstance ; and the whole affair from commencement to end was an attempt on the part of O'Neill to hold the property for Mardling against all credi-tors.-—His Honor said that an air of suspicion pervaded tho whole transaction, and in his opinion O'Neill, though acting kindly and generously to Mardling, had been guilty of that which the law could not sanction—protecting Mardling against general creditors in favor of one, by holding his property for him. The care which had been taken in draughting the document and in obtaining possession reminded him of the proverb, " Who is careful to excuse himself frequently accuses himself by the very care he takes to excuse himself." The rent, also, was perfectly inadequate, and teuded to confirm him in his opinion as to the matter of legal fraud. Looking at the case throughout, he felt satisfied to give judgment irrespective of the point which he had reserved. Judgment l for defendant.

Arthur White v. Peter Law.—This was an action to recover £IOO for false arrest and imprisonment Mr. Bailey for plaintiff, Mr. Rowlatt for defendant. The only evidence in support of the suit was that of the plaintiff, who briefly stated the case in which he had appeared as defendant and Law as informant, in the Justice's Court, at Naseby, in last. The charge referred to was that he (Arthur White) had stolen from the smithy of Peter Law a pick and handle, value 9s. The result of the trial was the discharge of the defendant without any stain upon his character. He now sought compensation for the degradation to which he had been subjected by the act of Law, in having caused his arrest. This closed the case for the plaintiff.—Mr. Kowlatt opened the case for the defence by stating that he was prepared to show two strong grounds for a dis-

missal of the case: Firstly, that Peter Law was not the principal in ihe prosecution of White ; and that, secondly, his evidence in the Court below had tended in a great measure to justify his action in that proceeding. These pleas were supported by the evidence of two witnesses, that of the Sergeant of Police and one named Stevens. The other witnesses were simply called upoi* to prove the ability of blacksmiths to identify their own work. .Judgment reserved.