RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume V, Issue 192, 16 August 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Before J. Sharp, Esq., R.M.] ! An important case was tried to-da* 1 in which Robert Levicn was claimant. The Marlborougli Press and Printing Company Plaintiffs, and Euan F. Jones Defendant. Mr. Pitt appeared for the Claimant, and Mr. . Fell instructed by Mr. Conolly for the Defendant. In this case certain goods had been seized by j the Bailiff under a Distress Warrant from the Kesident Magistrates Court, Picton, and claimed by Robert Levien as being part of certain goods mentioned in a Bill of sale made by the Defendant Jones in his favor in June 1567. Mr. Pitt in opening the case for the Claimant contended — Ist That the goods seized by the Bailiff were in the Bill of Sale given by Jones tv Levien; 2nd That Mrs. Coulman, one of the persons in whose favor the Bill of Sale was made, had remained in possession of the goods ever since the execution of the Bill of Sale; 3rd That the goods seized, although not particularly specified in the Schedule to the Bill of Sale, were covered by the Declaration contained in the Bill of Sale. Several witnesses were examined to prove the facts of the case. Mr. Fell on behalf of the plaintiffs contended that the Bill of Sale was bad as against these goods on the following grounds — Ist. That the goods more particularly mentioned in the schedule did not include those seized by the bailiff. 2nd. j That if the Bench rule 1 they were induced in the Bill of Sale, the claimant had forfeited his right over them, as against a judgment creditor, he having consented to tlu-ir beiiu' removed from the defendant's house at the Port to his shop in Bridge-street, when the Bill of Sale distinctly stated it was intended to cover goods only at the defendant's house at the Port. The solicitors on both sides quoted at great length from several leading cases. His Worship, in giving judgment, stated that he was sorry he had not had time to give a written judgment in this case as it was very important that a judgment of this nature should be in writing in case of any future reference. However, he hoped the professional gentlemen would follow him and | take notes of the principal points he raised. As! to the claimant's nVt contention he ruled that the goods seized by the bailiff were not included in the Bill of Sale. With regard to the second he ruled that if the goods were included in the Bill of Sale the claimants had forfeited lheir right over them as against a judgement creditor b» allowing them to be removed from off the premises at the Port; and with regard 1.0 the last he ruled that although the goods might have been on the Defendant's premises at the time the Bill of Sale was executed, yet, as they were not enumerated in i

the Schedule to the Bill of Sale, they could not form part of the goods mentioned in it. Judgment must therefore be that the Claimants settle the amount due on the Distress Warrant viz £12 17s lid. and pay the costs of the Court in this action viz £3 12s.