RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1803, 16 October 1888, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tjicfia—Monday, Oct. 15,1888.

[Before Captain Wraj, R.M.] crriL cases.

Maggie Dyson r. A. W. Surridge— Claim £4.—Adjourned for a fortnight. Proprietor Temuka Leader v. Edward Brisco—Claim £1 13j.—Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. C, H. Reid v. K. F, Gray—Claim £25 Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hay for the defendant.

The short facts of this case were that the plaintiff rented a house for which defendant was agent. The property was sold, and it was to pass into the possession of another on the Ist September, on which day tbs rent would have been due. It would not have been competent for the defendant to put a distress warrant into a house which bad passed out of his possession on September Ist, and so the disress warrant was put in and the goods seized on the 31st August. On the ground that it was illegal to distrain before the rent became due the plaintiff now sued the defendant for £25 damages, alleged to have been sustained by him by the seizure of the goedsi.

George Levens, bailiff: ()a the Slat of August last received a warrant to seize the goods and chattels of the plaintiff. Oa the 31st of August took the goods, and they were sold. To Mr Hiy: I made , the demand for the rent whun I went in. Mrs Reid said she had not it. I said that as the premises weie changing hands on the folio ving day I had come a few hours sooner, As there was mors than enough there, I took the urtieles she suggested. Was present at the sals. Some articles fetched very good prices. C. H Reid : On the 31st August was absent from home. When I returned I found the goods had been distrained. I did not owe £9 11s 6d then. I owed about £6 12s Qi. I valued the harmonium at £lO, bedstead £1 10s, mirror 7 s 6d, clock Bs, lamp 2a fid, 10 pictures £1 10s, cupboard £l, sewing machine £5, couch £2. I estimated the damage sustained at £25.

To Mr Hay; Was a weekly tenant. Had been there for two years. Was paying 7s a week. I always paid by

cheque up to my bankruptcy in June, 1887. We never bad a proper squaring up since. The order on Mr Orbell was given after the shearing season. I have not paid anything, by cash or in cheque, since then. Mr Gray told me h« would

repair# a squaring up on tha first of the month. Was in town on tha night of the but djd not go near' Mr Gray or hie son. I sustained daiqage by the fqpde

being taken away. I cannot give any reason for not having gone near Mr Gray between the seizure and the sale of goods. I did not get the letter (a copy of which was read) intimating to me that the property had changed hands and warning me to pay before the 28th of August. To Mr Aspinall : Had an interview with Mr Gray, and he said I would have to pay on 3 st of September. This concluded the plaintiff’s case.

Mr Hay said the grounds were that the distress was illegal because the goods were tikeuoi: the 51st of August, instead of the Ist of September. He would produce arguments to show that before a distress could be it would be necessary to prove there was no rent due at all. He called

K. F. Gray ; I was agent for the property let to the plaintiff. Last,, year he was in arrear, and when hei : became bankrupt he„told me to put in my claim to the Official Assignee and that it would be a preferential claim. The Official Assignee disallowed the'!lolaim,‘ oh the ground that, he had not taken any of the goods that were in the house. Reid; then gave me an order on Mr Orbell for the amount due to date and it was <paid. Received goods for sale on account of Reid, and these were credited to his account, This properly changed harids in August, and 1 instructed ray son to write a letter to him, and Mr S,eid came to me and I told ,him he must pay before the Istj as I woulld have no alternative but seize. He said— Lj have a ,lot of .extra furniture I shall not require, and I; shall send that r for sale in any 1 case.” He waa in town-at the 1 time between the seizure and the sale, but he did not come to see me. He nefer tendered the amount duo at any time. The letter (copy already read) was written at my dictation. j • To Mr Aspinall ; I, do .not know the amount due at the time of the bankruptcy. The goods brought' £8 Is 6d at the sale. I am not going to set myself up fis an expert as to the price of harmoniums, but Reid’s was not greatly sacrificed the ipriooiit:fetched at -.thb'isalewi!/.,- i F. K. Gray, son of the previous Ovltiiess, deposed: Gn a settlement was arrived at. The agreement Vts a weekly'tenant at 7s a week, a week’s notice on either side. The order on Mr Orbell settled the account to

December the 3rd. On the 31st August there was £9 11a 6d, less 7s, bvring. Reid paid after his bankruptcy. The order on Oibell included the whole of the rent dus before Raid's bankruptcy as well as afterwards. Went with the bailiff to Reid’s

house, and Mrs Reid pointed out every article taken. In fact, Reid often before said he would sell the articles, and asked when we would have a sale. He said lie would pay the rent with the., proceeds. Mrs Reid said the harmonium was no good

to her. It was in her way. She said she expected to have tier goods taken. The witness was examined at great length with regard to the accounts, with the result that he said that the amount due previous

to thedistress being put in was £9 4s, and the amount realised by the sale was £8 Us 61. The balance still due was £2 15s 6 i.

Mr Hay than addressed the Court and said there wae rent due at the time of the seizure, and therefore the seizure could not be illegal. Ha quoted, the case of Tancred v. Le'nnd, 20, Law Journal, Q. 8., 316, and Glen v. Tbom&s, 25, Liw Journal, 125. The tenor of his argument was that Reid being a weekly tenant, he owed rent up to August 24, and there was no illegality iu putting in a distress warrant, for that; that the fact that an amount more chan the actual amount due' was put into the warrant did not render the seizure illegal. He read copious reports from the Law Journals bearing on these points, his argument taking about three-quarters of an hour in delivery. ■ Mr AspihaU urged that Mr Hay was arguing beside the question. The cases he referred to were cases of irregularities. He contended that the goods could not have been legally seized until the 2nd of September, and quoted Wbodfall , Addison, and 32, Law Journal, Q. 8., 146, Attack v. Bramble in support of his contantion.

His Worship said the point was a nice one, arid ha would take time; to: consider it. Ho would give jridgment next Court day. J. Angland v. J. Moynihan. This ease came up again, Mr Hay appearing for the defendant. After a lot of talk it was adjourned for another period. ’ ,The. Court then rose.