Supreme Court, Napier.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 1016, 24 December 1881, Page 2

Supreme Court, Napier.

Civil Sittings. Tcesday, 20th December. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Richmond and a Special Jury.) BANK OF NEW ZEALAND V. COMMON AND DE LATOUR. This was a suit to recover £1,500 damages for alleged wrongful seizure and conversion of property and for trespass.

Mr Travers and Mr Ward appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr Rees and Mr White for Mr DeLautour, and Mr Carlile and Mr J. Nolan for Mr Common.

Mr J. S. Torr was chosen foreman of the jury. Mr Travers opened the plaintiff’s ease, which arose out of the same flock of sheep as were the cause of action against Pekakerekere. The defence was, first, a general denial, throwing upon the bank the onus of proving their case, and which the defence undertook to repel with a number of special pleas, justifying what they had done. The bank, it was explained, had become the owners of the sheep in the same way as stated in Pekakerekere’s case. These sheep were distrained upon by Wi Pere and sold for an amount alleged to be due for rent. They were purchased by Mr Common, Mr DeLautour acting for Wi Pere. There was more in it than an innocent purchase ; he would be able to show that Mr Common was a trespasser from the first, and that Mr DeLautour was conjointly with him a wrong-doer. Mr Travers then gave the history of the case ; how Mr Hardy possessed two shares in Wakanui, one through his wife, Amiria was also a grantee and her share was acquired by Hardy. He occupied two special portions in which occupation he was not molested. There was a paddock of 190 acres, and on the other side of the road he also occupied a piece. Hardy owned a flock of sheep which were depasturing on this land. These were mortgaged to the bank. The bank took possession of the sheep and they were placed in charge of Walls. Walls placed them in the paddock on the opposite side of the road to the house. As Hardy had conveyed his interest in the block to the bank, the bank was perfectly justified in running the sheep there. Wi Pere, through whose interest the defendants sought to justify themselves, was also a grantee, and defendants alleged that he leased the paddock in question from Wi Pere, that there was rent due, and that he lawfully took possession. They said £1,400 was due for rent and they distrained for £790. Mr Tavares went on to say that he would prove (1) that Wi Pere sold his interest in the block to Barker and McDonald, and (2) that Wi Pere also sold the same interest to Mr Rees ; (3) that Mr Rees mortgaged that interest to Mr Common, which would entirely dispose of Wi Pere’s right to distrain for rent; (4) that Hardy was never Wi Pere’s tenant; (5) that Hardy did not owe Wi Pere anything, their account having been previously settled by arbitration.