RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1625, 25 August 1887, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka—Wednesday, Arnos* 24, 188 T. [Before J. S. Beswick, Esq., R.M.] CIVU. CASES. Henry Williams y. William Jonei— Claim 1 Os.—Ju gment by default with costs. Henry Clinch v; Cbaa. I«rr—Claim £l 9s. Judgment summons. Mr Aspinail for plaintiff. Defendant paid £1 into Csnrt, and agreed to pay the balance at the ra'e of Ss per week.-—An order was made accordingly. Aekroyd r. Eagle.—Mr Toiawill appeared for plaintiff, and stated that he bad ascertained that it was useless to proceed further with the case, and asked that it might be struck out. Lynch y, B yth—Claim *2O, for damages snatained through wrongful seizure of a dray and horse.

Mr M. J. Lynch appeared, for - plaintiff, and Mr Aspinall for defendant. This was a case arising out of one pieriously heard, in which Blyth, as execution creditor, bad seized and sold a dray, horse, and harness, purporting to belong to William Lems, but which was subsequently adjudged to be the property of the claimant. W. Wilis, Clerk of the Court, Temuka, produced a warrant issued on July 13'b in the case Blyth v. Lewis. It was taken oat by Blyth. Personally ho received no instructions what to seize. . • George Lorens, assistant bailiff at Temuka : Received a warrant for execution in the case Blyth v. Lewis. Saw a dray and horse in Lewis’ yard and seized them. Had not- seen Mr Blyth up to this time! Was told by Lewis that the goods belonged to e third party, and saw Mr Blyth, who said that if an interpleader were set up he would fight it. Was present at a conversation between Blyth and Wills on the day of the sale. It was about a horse collar. Blyth instructed witness to sell everything. In cress-examination witness gave details of what took place between himself, Lewis, and Lynch with regard to certain receipts. Prom this it appeared that there was discrepancy between the date upon which the sale was supposed to have been made and the date of the cancelling ef tbs stamp. Witness ascertained that tbs sale note or receipt bad been written about half an-hour after the seianre had ben made, and the judgment creditor and Mr Wills were, of opinion that tho sale was a fraudulent one, Witness continued : Plaintiff wan told that he could interplead, but ho decided to allow the sale to go on, as it was probable the horse, etc,, would be bought in for him, They fetched fair market value, W. Wilis, re-called, corroborated previous witness’ statement as to the sale note, and the conclusion arrived at. The seizure was made in the ordinary coarse ot proceeding. At the sale a clauMwag mads verbally for the collar, but was not recognised, . ■ His Worship considered it a paltry case, No damages had been proved, and the bailiff had acted with reasonable discretion, and the whole transaction was of such a nature that he was fully justified in the action he took in the matter. Plaintiff would be nonsuited with costs. B. J. W. Chamberlain r. George Robinson—Claim £1 Bs.—Judgment by default with costs.