Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.) Monday, 10th January. Interpleaded in re Keen v. Henry. — In this case William M'Nickle called upon J. L. S. Keen to show cause why the sum of £17 paid in by M'Nickle to satisfy the judgment in the above cause should not be refunded. Mr. Mouat (from Mr. M'Keay's office) appeared for Mr. M'Nickle ; Mr. Keen appeared in person. The short facts of the case are as follows : — Some short time since Mr. Keen obtained judgment on a dishonoured cheque against Mr. Henry — immediately issued execution. Some three days after the bailiff took possession, Mr. Hay, the auctioneer instructed by Mr. D. M'Cluskey, who held a bill of sale over Henry's goods, sold everything by auction to Mr. M'Nickle for £120 in one lot. Thereupon the bailiff quitted possession. At this time Mr. Keen was from home, and upon his return demanded that the bailiff should retake possession and sell. This was done ; and as soon as the sale commenced Mr. M'Nickle satisfied the judgment, A great deal of evidence was given ; and at the conclusion of Mr. M'Nickle's case, Mr. Keen asked for an adjournment till Thursday, which was granted. Whenthecase was again called on Thursday, Mr. Keen said that unless he was allowed to attack the bill of sale, he would have no defence. He was in a position to show that Mr. M'Cluskey had no right to sell Henry's goods, and that the bill of sale had been previously satisfied. His Worship remarked that this might be all very true, but it would not— it could not — affect Mr. M'Nickle's title to the goods. Mr. M'Nickle had bought and taken possession ; and the action taken by the bailiff was clearly illegal. Mr. Keen said that he would not trouble the Court with any evidence under the circumstances. Ordered that the amount paid into Court be refunded— Mr. Keen to pay costs, and 15s. expenses of one witness. (The case Morrison and Evans v. Jas. Campbell, manager of the Otago Gold Mining Company, was heard on Thursday. We shall publish the details of it next week.)

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TT18700115.2.9

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Tuapeka Times, Volume II, Issue 101, 15 January 1870, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
358

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT LAWRENCE. Tuapeka Times, Volume II, Issue 101, 15 January 1870, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT LAWRENCE. Tuapeka Times, Volume II, Issue 101, 15 January 1870, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert