RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1356, 15 September 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth Esq,, R.M,) THURSDAY. Wilmore v. Cooper. His Worship Save judgment in the above case. In his opinion the plaintiff had substantiated her case, and he would give judgment for the plaintiff, on the plea that she was not the wife of Bromb y. FRIDAY. Greenwood v. Krnny, Gruner and Mullooly. Mr Rees appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Finn for Mr Mullooly and Mr oruner Thi« was an action to recover £39 13s lOd . It appears that about twelve months ago Mr Mullooly sued one Apiata te Hame, and having lost the case was cast in £39 13s lOd, which he paid by cheque. At the same time Mullooly issued a warrant which was placed in the hands of the bailiff, Mr Gruner, who thereupon seized the cheque as the property of Apiata ie Hame, and paid it into the Registrar of the Court to Mr Mullooly’s account. ||Vlr G. L. Greenwood stated in October last year, Mr Mullooly and Mr Kenny came to his office to pay some costs. The cheque was written out and placed upon the table. He wrote out a receipt for the amount, while doing so Mr Gruner entered the room. The receipt was handed to Mr Kenny who then told Mr Gruner to seize the money under distress warrant, which Mr Gruner held. He was not satisfied with the legality of the transaction and demanded the cheques back again. He did not resist the seizure. A receipt was given for the money. He had never received the money back again, although he had demanded it. To Mr Finn : He had no conversation with Mr Mullooly about the matter. He thought Mr Kenny laid the cheque on the table. He never took it into his hands. It was against his will the cheque was taken. He had made no formal protest until the cheque was taken up. He was aware that the money was going to be seized. He did not think the seizure was a legal one. He passively allowed the money tn be taken. The bailiff had a warrant against Apiata te Hame for £6B. The bailiff never returned that cheque. The amount seized was afterwards paid to Mullooly, for which he produced a receipt. To Mr Rees ; The receipt showed that he had received that sum, which he had not accounted for. There is nothing in the books to show that the amount had been paid. He had no doubt that he was liable for the amount. Air Gruner said that in October last he was placed in possession of a certain warrant authorising him to seize the goods, Ac., of one Apiata te Hame. He seized the cheque from Mr Kenny. Mr Greenwood never had the cheque in his hand. Mr Greenwood made no objection at the time. Mr Greenwood handed him the distress warrant. By Mr Rees—Was informed that tbe cheque belonged to Apiata te Hame. Mr H. Brown was a cadet in the court at the time, and remembered the above occurrence. Air Kenny placed the cheque on the table, and the bailiff then seized it. After the Bench hud been addressed by Mr Finn and Mr Rees, his Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for £39 13s lOd and costs £4 3s. Warren v Briengan. Claim, £2 4s. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with ousts 13s. Warren t Hardt. Claim, £6. Judgment for plaintiff for the full amount, with costs 110. Stevenson v Mrs Pranglet. Claim for rent £3, and possession of tenement. Judgment for plaintiff with costs Bs. The defendant was also ordered to gmi up possession by ton o’clock the following day. Trimmer v Nicholas. Claim, £9, £5 of which was a claim for special damages for the non-delivery of certain goods at Tologa' Bay, but which was abandoned after considerable argument, Judgment whs given, after hearing the evidence, for the plaintiff for £4 13.