SUPREME COURT-CIVIL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5170, 17 October 1877, Page 3

SUPREME COURT-CIVIL SITTINGS.

. Tuesday, October 16. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond and a special jury.) PETERS V. JOSEPH AND ANOTHER. The hearing of plaintiff’s case was resumed, which was a claim of £SOOO for illegal seizure and wrongful conversion of property. Joseph Cross and J. B. Bridges were called, and testified that the workshop erected by Peters was worth about £SO. Paul Voight stated he was present an the 16th August, when Mr. Travers, jun., gave Mr. Peters a bill and asked for payment. Plaintiff stated that it was past banking hours, but Mr. Travers stated that asking for the amount of the bill was only a matter of form, and then put two bailiffs in possession. The plaintiff was going to take away some ticking, hut the bailiffs prevented him, and said he had no right to take anything. A boy named Laurent was called, and also gave evidence as to the bailiffs taking possession of the premises. The plaintiff was recalled, and examined and cross-examined at considerable length. This concluded the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Travers, for the defendants, submitted that the count in the declaration for wrongful conversion had not been made out by the plaintiff. To prove conversion it was necessary to prove that the seizure was unlawful. His Honor said that the count for conversion might apply to the seizure of plaintiff’s tools. His impression was that tools were not stock-in-trade, and consequently might not have been included in the bill of sale. He saw clearly that there was some evidence to go to the jury on the first count. Mr. Travers opened the case for the defence, and called

Mr. N. J. Isaacs, who deposed that plaintiff’s goods were removed carefully to his auction rooms. . The prices realised for Peters’ stock were very satisfactory. There was a dispute between witness and Mr. Taylor, through the latter bidding ridiculously small sums, thereby endeavoring to depreciate the value of the goods. Cross-examined : I bought nothing myself. Mr. Barnard bought a joiner’s cramp at 255; piece of crimson rep, 7 yards, at 4s. per yard; iron cot, 16s. fid.; two brackets, ss. fid. each. That was all he purchased, I am not aware that any of Peters’ goods wore resold by me, though that might likely have occurred, as it was a common occurrence for goods purchased at auction one day to bo resold the next. I see that an armchair is put down to me, but I am not aware who bid for it. Anything put down to Mr. Levy was bought for Mr. James.

Other goods were sold besides'Petersl at the sale; but not a great deal. Those 7 goods were of ordinary quality. , After the. sales Peters asked to see my books, and he was sbo wn them immediately. ' X am positive that bedstea s purchased by Peters from me for over £5 were not sold for £1 10s: The bedsteads I sold plaint ff were not put up at the’auction sale. W. L. Nathan, one of the firm of Jacob, Joseph, and Co., deposed that the firm entered into an arrangement with Peters about the end of April. Plaintiff said he was in temporary difficulties, and that he could not meet liabilities falling due on the 4th of May, and asked witness to assist him. He said to Peters if his affairs were in a satisfactory state he would see what he could do for him. He told plaintiff that if they took charge of his business he would have to buy all his goods from the firm, and tl at they would charge him 5 per cent, on all cash advances. Witness told Peters that if he acted straightforwardly they would treat him well, ’ and pay all his bills as they fell due, and thereby save him a great deal of anxiety. He told Peters to take time to consider the matter. . Plaintiff informed*, witness that he took the advice of Mr. ICiull, and afterwards entered into thc arraugement. He was charged the same prices for "goods as other customers. According to the bill of sale witness understood the firm were entitled to charge TO per cent, from the opening of the account. The charge of £lO 10s. for interest was under a miscouception as to the terms of the bill of sale. He had only learned since he came into Court that interest could only be charged after default of payment. Peters never disputed any item in the account rendered. Witness did not take action until he''found that the plaintiff’s stock was diminishing. He found that plaintiff had given goods to Samuel Ladd and Co, to the extent of £4O, on the 14th August, in satisfaction of a bill which was not due till September 4. Witness was also aware of a large sale of goods by plaintiff to Mr. Mills. After the goods were seized plaintiff never asked for the keys, nor did he tender any money or offer to pay in any way. Witness had never been in possession of plaintiff’s premises. The plaintiff had always access to the accounts. Cross-examined ; I cannot say that at the time the bill of sale was effected I knew Peters had given a bill of sale to Samuel, Ladd, and Co. I presume that the statement of Peters’ debt at the time included the liability to Samuel, Ladd, and Co. I Mr. Davis strongly not to give credit to plaintiff, as he was about to give witness’s firm a bill of sale.

Hugh Maudesley deposed that under _ instructions he took possession of the premises. He removed 1 everything he found upon the place to Isaacs’ auction mart. Every care was taken of the furniture. He gave the keys of Mr. Peters’ premises to Mr. Urwin, the landlord. Peters never asked him for the keys. Witness did not interfere with the internal gasfittings, nor did he take away any shelving. Thomas Urwin, late of the Theatre Royal Hotel, stated that he received the keys of Peters’ premises from the bailiff. The keys were hung up in the hotel bar for five weeks, but no one called for them. He applied t;o Peters for rent j bub- he, stated he was not in a position to pay anything, and witness then took possession. Two days after the bailiff gave witness the keys he informed Peters, but plaintiff did not. ask for them. The workshop was removed because it encroached some 3ft. upon ground he leased from Mr. Rhodes. Witness sold the ground he leased from Mr, Rhodes to Mr. Hunt for £l7O, and allowed him to remove the workshop. This concluded the evidence for the defendants.

Mr. Travers and Mr. Barton addressed the jury. His Honor summed up, and the jury retired to consider their verdict, and after an absence of an hour and five minutes, returned into Court with a verdict on the main issues for the plaintiff, damages £525 10s. The Foreman stated that the jury distinctly understood that the damages given would 1m a set-off against moneys owing by the plaintiff to the defendants. His Honor said he did not see how he was to give effect to the intention of the jury. The damages given were in the nature of a proved debt, while the defendants might have to go into the Courts to prove theirs. He understood that the jury intended to give damages to such an extent as to relieve the plaintiff from future litigation; in fact they had struck a balance so that both parties could cry quits. The Foreman intimated that that was the intention of the jury. Mr. Travers said his clients would agree to this, to avoid fresh litigation, and would hand over the balance of the book debts to the plaintiff. Mr. Barton said he had no desire for further litigation, but the jury were not in possession of sufficient evidence as to the balance owing to the defendants by his client. His Honor said probably not, as during the bearing that was not thought necessary for the purposes of the case. The Foreman then said that the jury desired to let the verdict stand as it was, and his Honor said he would enter judgment accordingly. The Court adjourned till Thursday morning at 10 o’clock.