PATEA COUNTY MAIL PUBLISHED Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1880. WRONGFUL SEIZURE.

Patea Mail, 20 November 1880, Page 2

PATEA COUNTY MAIL PUBLISHED Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1 880. WRONGFUL SEIZURE.

The claim of Mr Daniel Williamson for damages snff ored by wrongful seizure of cattle, in connection with his brother’s financial difficulties, is one. in a series of regrettable incidents. Francis Williamson contracted debts which he did not make reasonable effort to pay, hut put his creditors to vexations and expensive trouble. His conduct has also brought into unpleasant prominence the name and repute of a highly respected family. In distraining on the joint family property, the pursuing creditor acted on legal advice. He had a right to recover his money, in a regular and legal manner. Ho consulted a lawyer; was advised that he could lawfully distrain on the joint property ; and he instructed the bailiff to seize cattle sufficientto satisfy the judgment summons. If the lawyer gave wrong advice, or if the bailiff did not exercise proper discretion in selecting cattle to seize, the creditor was unfortunate in the legal instruments he used ; but no personal blame attached to the creditor for setting the law in motion to enforce his rights. Creditors have rights, and are entitled to enforce them in a regular way. Wc offer these suggestions to deprecate any spirit of revenge which indiscreet sympathisers may fool for a debtor who has had other persons’ money, and tries to evade repayment by avoiding a fair disclosure of assets. Public sympathy should surely be with creditors who have been vexatiously and wrongfully kept out of their money. Even a brother should bo fair and just towards his brother’s creditors, and not seek to aggravate the injury which that brother has done. The seizure of cattle on the joint estate was a mistake, in our opinion. The proper course would have been to compel the defaulting debtor to realise his portion of the joint estate. This could not be done so long as the debtor kept out of the way, which is a matter of inference, though the inference may be wrong. The creditors would doubtless have waited longer than they did, if any reasonable effort had been made to pay. Has Francis Williamson made any honorable effort to settle with his creditors during six months past ? Ho was known to bo possessed of a fifth share in the joint farm, and was not assisting in the realisation ol that fifth share. The result is now seen to be this, that he recently attempted to make over the said fifth

share to his wife, under a post-nuptial settlement, subject to a mortgage of £SOO alleged to be due to his sister. This was done after he had committed an act of bankruptcy by allowing his cheques to be dishonored. That post-nuptial settlement could not iiold good unless Francis Williamson was solvent at the time, and had been solvent during the statutory period necessary to legalise the post-nuptial transfer of his property. Creditors whose property was slipping from them by lapse of time were entitled to press for a settlement by seizing visible assets, or by compelling a full disclosure through the medium of the Bankruptcy Act, before the period to legislise the post-nuptial settlement could expire. Daniel Williamson, who managed the farm, sued for damages caused by illegal seizure of stock on the joint estate. The 22 head which the bailiff seized were partly Daniel’s private property and partly belonged to the joint estate. The seizure of Daniel’s private property was clearly illegal, although the creditor’s counsel set up a different theory. But how was the creditor to know in the first instance that the seizure would be illegal ? He consulted a lawyer, and was advised that the joint property could be seized to the extent of the debtor’s share. That seems to us a dangerous proposition, involving a series of counter actions if the other joint owners chose to sue for invasion of rights. Even if the proposition were technically correct, it would bo a too expensive remedy, and not advisable as a matter of policy. The creditor was also ignorant of the lact brought out at the trial that Daniel bad permission to run private stock on the joint farm which ho managed under the supervision of executors. One executor stated in Court that the farm manager had no such right, nor any permission to his knowledge. The creditors of Francis could not be expected to know Daniel’s position better than the executor knew it. Hence the mistake has all the appearance of being made accidentally, as the result of a peculiar method of working a farm, on which a manager runs private stock without the permission or knowledge of the executor living nearest to the farm, presumably knowing most about it, and specially deputed by his fellow-executor to superintend that property. All this goes to show the unreasonableness of bringing an action for damages against a creditor who has become responsible for mistakes which he took all reasonable care to avoid. There ought to be no vindictiveness in such a case. The spirit of a vendetta is not worthy of the parties concerned. It is the creditor who is the injured party in the case. A person who contracts debts and evades his promises to pay, having property to pay with, is not an object for public pity.