RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWEENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 228, 13 June 1872, Page 7

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWEENCE.

(Before Vincent Pyke, Esq., R M.) Monday, 10th June.

Brown v. Taylor.— Claim for £50 ; £25 value of tools illegally detained by defendant, and £25 damages sustained thereby. Mr. Mouat appealed for plaiut'ff, and Mr. M'Coy for defendant.

The plaintiff stated that on the 12th December last he had two boxes of tools worth £25 in his house, a list of which, made out from memory, he read . Shortly afterwards he missed them, and on speaking to defendant, he admitted having taken possession of them. He had lost several jobs, and was two months idle in consequence of not having his tools. In e:os -exa nination plaintiff stated (-hat 1 c did not know whether he was in Taylor's debt, and had never received an account from him.

By the Bench — Fever authorised Taylor to remove the tools.

For the defence Mr. M'Coy called H. J. Abel, Clerk of the Court, who stated that he had received a paper from the Registrar of the Supreme Court (produced) purporting to be a transfer to Taylor of house and goods. T. W. Mailler said that the document (produced) was in his handwriting. He wrote it at the requtst of Brown ; and when he (Brown) signed it he was sober. The tools were valued lately at £6 10s. Cross-examined. — The document was signed on the 17th April, in the h6use of Mr Marshall. Witness helped to remove the tools on the from Brown's on the 17th December. '

Andrew Taylor said that plaintiff was indebted to him, and that the tools came into his possession after the document referred to by last witness was signed by Brown. Cross-examined — The debt owed witness by plaintiff was for goods and cash lent. Very little was for drinks. Plaintiff told witness to get the tools. Mr. Mouat called a witness named Marshall, who stated that M'Cutcheon, Mailler, and himself carried plain 1 iTs boxes away from his house. Crossexamined — The tools were put into an outhouse belonging to Taylor. Brown ■was not present. Judgment was deferred. j M l Laughlan v. Monaghan — Claim for 32 weeks' wages, at LI ss. per week. Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff ; Mr. Mouat for defendant. Defendant, it appealed, was owner of an eighth share in the Beaumont and Tuapeka Water Race. In September last he agreed with plaintiff to work his share, M'Langhlan to receive half of the share when the race was completed, arid LI ss. per week for sustenance, and to pay half the expenses incurred in bringing iv the race. Plaintiff commenced work, and kept on the race until the 15th April, when he refused to work any longer The evidence for defendant showed that the plaintiff had received upwards of L4O from defendant during the time he was at work, but he objected to some of the payments. One item of L 7 11s. was paid by defendant in satisfaction of an execution against him, and as he did not authorise the defendant to pay, he refused to acknowledge it, and claimed the amount, although at the time it was paid he expressed his satisfaction of what had been done. Immediately prior to the payment of the L 7 11s., plaintiff transferred over his share in the race to defendant. Plaintiff also objected to a sum of L 3 2s. 6d. paid by defendant, being amount of deposit lodged in the hands of the Government, and also^p a sum of L 2 10s., being plaintiffs share of the expenses incurred on said race. During the period stated the plaintiff had had seventeen and a half holidays, and was not at work for eleven days on account of wet weather, and defendant refused to allow him for the days he was absent. Judgment deferred.

Tuesday, 11th Jujjb. M'Laughlinv. Monaghan — The Warden delivered judgment as follows . — This is i n action brought on a mining agreement to recover £40, wages for thirty-two weeks, at 255. per week. As defendant, by his own showing, only started to work on the 11th September, the time must be reduced to thirty-one weeks, which would show £38 15s. as due. Against this sum it is admitted that £25 18s, had been

paid to and received by plaintiff and it has been proved that an execution debt of £7 11s was paid for the plaintiff by defendant, with the knowledge and subsequent sanction of the former. As the contract has been terminated by the mutual act of the suiters, a further sum of £2 10s. , being a half-share of expenses incurred in working the claim, must also be set off against the plaintiff's claim. These items amount in the 'aggregate to £35 195., leaving a balance of £2 16s. only. Then comes the question whether defendant is liable to pay wages for the time during which plaintiff absented himself from work. It appears from the evidence that plaintiff was, in all, absent fifty-three days, or seven and a-half weeks, out of thirty-one weeks. Defendant is not liable, by ordinary usage, to pay for that time, and there is no agreement to the contrary effect. - Instead of defendant being indebted to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is actually a debtor to the defendant, having already - received more than he was entitled to.

Judgment for defendant, with £2 25., professional fee, one witness, 10s., mileage, 175., and subpoena, ss. Brown v. Taylor. — The Warden gave judgment as follows :—ln: — In this case th j defendant seeks to justify the detention by him of certain tools the property of the plaintiff— alleging that these tools were deposited with him as a lien or security for the payment of a debt due by plaintiff. A document has been produced, upon which defendant relies to establish rightful possession. It is dated December 18th. 1871, and reads thus :

I hereby give over to Mr. Andrew Taylor all that belongs to me at Tuapeka Mouth ; what I pay being what I owed him.

(Signed) "William Brown. It is argued by plaintiff's counsel that this does not constitute a lien, but rather a pledge, with which I agree. Then comes the question of lawful possession. It is in evidence that on the 12th December, (6 days prior to the date of the document) certain persons accompanied defendant to the plaintiff's premises in the dusk of evening, and that, tro,e persons there and then in plaintiffs absence forcibly seized arid carried away the tools, whilst defendant remained in another part of the premises presumably ■with the plaintiff. The two chests containing the tools were conveyed to a house owned by defendant, and next morning they were again removed and deposited in defendant's outhouse. The defendant s-iys that he first saw the tools in the outhouse on the 18th., after the document was signed. But plaintiff avers that on the 12th. (directly he missed the tools) he went to Taylor, who admitted that he had them ; thus disclosing a knowledge of the seizure and removal. Clearly the defendant was wrongfully in possession of the tools up to the 18th ; and the, question then arises how far the document given by the plaintiff justifies detention thereafter. lam of opinion that the original seizure having been illegal, there should have been a complete restitution, and a free deliveiy from the pledger to the pledgee, to validate the transaction. The law will not admit the acquisition of a lledgee by a wrongful act,* such as was undoubtedly committed by defendant in this case. Such restitution and delivery were not made. The document is further invalid upon other consideration 1 !, and judgment must go for plaintiff.. lam in doubt as to the value of the tools. Tlie plaintiff values them at £25. Evidence has been given that they have been valued at £6 11s., and defendant declared he would not give £5 for them. I will assess them at £10., and enter up judgment for that amouut, to be reduced to Is. on their delivery to plaintiff. ' I shall not allow any damages for the detention, because plaintiff has not used due dilligence in their recovery.