DISTRICT COURT.

South Canterbury Times, 15 November 1880, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. [Uefore His Honor Judge Ward.] CIVIL CASES. Jeffcoate _v Couch —Claim £SO, damages for illegal search of premises. Mr Hamersley for plaintiff ; Mr White for defendant. Austin Kirby, detective, stationed at Timaru, remembered August 23 last. Knew the defendant Couch ; he called on the above day at the police office and laid an information against Jeffcoate, alleging tlwit he had a quantity of hams and bacon and live fowls, of the t )tal value of £l2O, which belonged to him (Couch) concealed in his house at Sandietown. Having taken out a search warrant, he accompanied defendant to Jcffcoate’s house and made a thorough search of the premises. Mrs Jeffcoate and two children were in the house. Mr Jeffcoate was away at the time. Mrs Jeffcoate made no objection to the house being searched. On the way up to the house witness asked the defendant whether lie had good grounds for suspecting the plaintiff. He made no reply. Mary Jeffcoate, wife of the plaintiff, deposed to the defendant and Detective Kirby coming to the house and searching for the bacon. 'They searched every wheae. ]>y Mr White.—The only annoyance witness experienced was in having the house searched. This was all the evidence. Air White submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction, inasmuch as damages were sought for trespass, whereas the case was iri reality an action for malicious prosecution, and consequently beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. The plaintiff was non-suited. Hryant v Henry and another—Claim £SO, damages for illegal search of premises. Mr Hamerslcy for plaintiff ; Mr White for defendant. The short facts of the case, as elicited by the evidence, were that the plaintiff, a general produce dealer at Temuka, was sued by the defendant at the Temuka H.M. Court for the recovery of certain money due. to Him. The defendant confessed judgment and settled the claim, but three days afterwards a bailiff came to his bouse and took posscssio i of his furniture, Ac., in satisfaction of the debt which the plaintiff had already discharged, in consequence of the bailiff’s presence at his house, the plaintiff’s credit had suffered, and it was for this that lie sought to recover damages. The bailiff was examined and deposed that he was only in the plaintiff’s house for about an hour and a half, and left immediately he was shewn the receipt for the money due from the plaintiff to the defendant. Mr White objected that Hryant had not paid the money for which he was sued to the Clerk of the H.M. Court at Temuka, as he should have done, but to Henry, personally. Mr Hamerslcy submitted that there was no punishment for not paying over money in these cases to the Clerk of the Court, and again, it was clearly as much Henry’s duty to report having been paid to the Clerk of the Court as it was Dry ant’s duty to pay the money to the Clerk of the. Court. He was at least equally culpable. After some further evidence, judgment was given for the plaintiff who was awarded £5 damages.