RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1492, 13 April 1886, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine—Monday, April 13th, 1886

[Before H. C. S. Baddeley, Esq., B.M. nnd Dr Fish and the Rev. Deo. Barclay, J.P. ’«] CIVIL OASES. C. E. Sherralt v. Thomas R’dne—Claim £s3s. Mr White appeared for plaintiff. Mr White said that in order to make the case plain he would just state the facts of it. In January, 1886, one McKay was a tenant of one Lloyd. McKay’s goods were seized for rent by the plait tiff in the present action as Lloyd’s bailiff. A man named Shilling interpleaded in the ease, and the defendant Raine saw the plaintiff and promised that if the goods were given up and the case went against McKay he would be responsible for the money. The interpleader did go agaiast McKay, nnd the defendant Rsino has been applied to for the money but bad never paid it. 0. E. Sherratt, sworn, deposed : I acted ns bailiff for C. A. Lloyd in seizing McKay’s goods under distress warrant for rent. Mr Shilling interpleaded. While the goods were in my possession the defendant Raine came to see me with McKay. Raine said if 1 would release the goods he would pay me if the order went against McKay. On that understanding I gave up the goods. I mistook defendant for Turner. I was mistaken as to the identity of the person. I took him for Turner, who is a substantial man. Defendant is a cordial manufacturer. He never objected to paying me at first, only he said he had not the money. He began to object the same week that the order went against McKay. He told me that McKay was about to sell his goods on Saturday night by Dutch auction. I thought lie (McKay) would hand the money over to Raine and Raine would pay me. Raine told me after the interpleader that McKay was selling his property, and would pay him, and he (Raine) would pay me on the following Saturday night. This matter has been hanging over for the last twelve months. Raine said that when in Taylor’s store he overheard me say to Shilling that I would look to him for the money. I deny ever saying this. To defendant; I have tried Shilling for the money, and he said of course he would not pay. I tried you, because you became responsible. I never said to Shilling Ido not look to him (Raine) for the money, but 1 look to you. R. S. Cook, sworn, said : I know the complainant and defendant in this action. 1 know what the action is brought on for. The defendant acknowledged to me at one time that he had become responsible for the money. This was the complainant’s case. Thomas Raine, sworn, said: 1 heard the complainant stats he would look to Shilling for the money, and not to me. This was the day before the sale. When he said this, of course 1 had no more to do with it. I did not say that if the bailiff would withdraw I would be responsible for the money. I said Shilling would pay the money ; that it would be all right.

The Bench considered that it had been clearly proved that defendant had induced complainant to give up possession on the understanding that he would be responsible for the money. The fact of his having acknowledged this to Cook was sufficient evidence of this. If he had not done so, what had induced the complainant to go out, at the risk of having to pay the money out of his own pocket 1 Judgwould be given for the plaintiff, with costa and solicitor’s fee, £1 Is.

A person named Bull asked to be allowed a month to pay a distress warrant for £2 12s, aid tho request was granted. The Court then rose.