Friday, sth September.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 293, 11 September 1873, Page 5

Friday, sth September.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R,M.) Judgment was given in the,following cases: — M'Beath v. Fahey. —This was an adjourned decision from last Tuesday, and his Worship gave judgment as follows :—: — That the evidence was nearly balanced, I although ,a slight preponderance was on i one side, but so slight that in a question, ' which might materially affect the charac-

ter of either defendant or one of plaintiffs witnesses, he would not be justified in saying that there was sufficient proof to his satisfaction upon the merits of the case for either plaintiff or defendant. Plaintiff non-suited ; each party to pay his own costs. Einde v. Hay. — This was also an adjourned decision from Tuesday last, and the decision was as follows : — The jndgment in this action must be against plaintiff. There are two points which must lead to this conclusion, and I will state them both. One is that plaintiff has failed to show the damages sustained by the alltged pound breach; the measure of damages, whether plaintiff sued for single or treble damages, would, if plaintiff were entitled to recover, be regulated by the value of the goods seized, or proof that the goods were of the value of plaintiff's claim for rent. There is no evidence of value whatever, and therefore nothing to enable me to assess damages had I been of opinion that the case had been sustained in other particulars. The other point is upon the question if whether any lawful and valid distress had beea effected ; and upon this I must hold that section 2 of the Distress and Replevin Act, 1868, applies, and that plaintiff to prove a valid distress should have shown that Mr. Hayes was duly authorised by warrant to make a seizure, the absence of such proof is fatal to plaintiff's case. Judgment for plaintiff. Upon the question of costs, it appears from the evidence that plaintiff hai a right to levy upon the goods, and defendant has gained this case through technical mistakes of plaintiff. Ido not consider that co3ts should be allowed. Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff; Mr. Mouatfor defendant.