R. M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3827, 5 June 1891, Page 2

R. M. COURT.

M ASTE RTON—THURSDAY,

(Before Colonel Roberts, B.M.J

THE CIVIL LIST. • Thomas Parsons v William Bey.— Claim, £46. Mr Beaid for plaintiff, Mr Tate for defendant. This was an interpleader case which arose out of a previous oase, Clifton v Parsons. The circumstances are briefly these: —A valuable mare and foal were seized by the bailiff at Eketahuna from one Lars Anderson, by' the instructions ofDr Bey, and were afterwards - purchased by Thomas Parsons. It subsequently transpired that the property belonged to Mr Clifton, who obtained recovery of the same from Mr Parsons. The latter now claimed from Dr Bey the value of the mare and foal, with damages. Mr Beard briefly stated the case. Edward William Porritt, clerk in the B.M. Court at" Wellington, deposed that he was agent for Dr Bev, and had sent a certain communication to Constable Boache.

By Mr Tate : He was only agent for Dr Bey so far as the issuing of the summons was concerned. Me did not authorise the seizure of the mare and foal by Constable Boache. As a matter of fact he did not know that Anderson had a mare and foal. Or Bey did not instruct him that tbey were to be seized. He did not instruct Constable Boache to sell the mare and foal, and he had not received instructions to this effeot from Dr Bey. His memorandum to Constable Boache only pointed out the course he should take by statute.

By Mr Beard: Had Bent the memorandum to Constable Roache as agent for Dr Bey. The debt was put into his hands for collection by Dr Bey. The debt was put into his hands as an interested party. He was interested in seeing that the judgment was paid. In his capacity as agent he gave general instructions to Constable Roache as to how to act.

J. J. Freeth, Clerk of the Court," deposed to certain papers having been filed in connection with the case, and produced the records of tho case of Clifton v. Parsons, which were endorsed "settled out of Court." Constable Maurice Roache, deposed that he acted in the execution of the distress warrant in the case Bey v. Anderson. Mr Porritt had communicated with him about advertising. He took his instructions from Mr Porritt as'agent for Dr Bey. On December 31st he received a communication from Mrs Clifton, stating that the mare and foal were her property. He sent this letter to Mr Porritt and received a reply. After receiving the'reply bethought be was safe, and sold the mare. He communicated with Mr Porritt to get advice and instructions. Under the distress warrant he seized a mare, foal, and saddle, and sold them by auction. Mr Parsons was the highest bidder.

By Mr Tate : Mr Porritt did not authorise the seizure. This was done under warrant. Tie considered tli9 mare and foal vorth £l4 or £ls;. although they were sold for £lO ss. He never knew that Mr Porritt was Dr Bey's agent, although he knew him to be a relation. He took the reply from Me Porritt as advice and instructions.

By Mr Beard : He had had several communications from Mr .Porritt previously. Lars Anderson deposed that in December last Dr. Bey. recovered judgment against liini for an account, on which a distress warrant was issued. This was executed by Constable Roache, who seized"a mare, foal, and saddle, the former belonging' to Mrs Clifton. He protested against the seizure. The mare was worth £BO or £BS. ■

By Mr Tate : The mare was given to Mrs Clifton by Mr Biddiford, by whom she was bred. Mr Parsons did not buy in the mare and foal for him. G. \V. Deller,. sworn, stated that in his opinion the mare for breeding purposes was worth £25. She belonged to the estate of Alfred Clifton, and was bought by witness at the sale of Clifton's effects. The mare bad since, by arrangement between himself and Mrs Clifton, been handed over to one Tyler. By Mr Tate j The mare had been bought in by him for about £lB on the 27th of August, 1889. -She was then about nine years of age. As a hack the mare would be worth £ls or £IG. If the mare was sold by auction lie had no doubt she would bring £2O if she was known.

Thomas Parsons deposed to the purchase of the mare at an auction sale. He had since been compelled to give, it up through an action brought by Mrs Clifton. He valued the mare at £3O for breeding purposes and had sold the foal for £6. The mare and value of the foal had been handed over to Mrs Clifton. By reason of the mare and foal being taken from him he considered he had sustained Li2 damages in expenses, By Mr Tate-: He valued the mare at LBO. Did not remember Mrs Clifton putting a special value of LBO on the mare.

This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Tate submitted thatthe plaintiff should be nonsuited on the grounds that he had not proved the signature to the plaint, Mr Beard maintained that there were na grounds whatever for a nonsuit. I

Mr Tate cited the case of Regina v Henderson in Broad's Magistrate's Courts Guide. He submitted further that it was not proved at the time of the seizure that the marc and foal nad been .claimed by Mrs Clifton as her property, as alleged.- Neither had it been put up to auction by defendant's instructions. Further, no proof had been given as to the ownership of the mare and foal, and there was nothing whatever to compel Parsons to give them up. He rose these nonsuit points without prejudice to his arguments in law, Mr Beard replied to the nonsuit points at soni6 length. The Bench decided to hear the arguments in law.

These occupied the Court for nearly two hdurs, numerous cases being cited by counsel on both sides.

His Worsbipreserved his decision

MASTERTOU—FRIDAY.

Alexander Dryer v Joseph Dryer, Application for maintenance under the Destitute Persons Act. Mr beard for plaintiff, Mr Bunny far defendant. On the application of Mr Bunny the case was adjourned for a week. A. 0. Milne v W. Riddle. In this caso Mr Bunny applied for a re-in-statement on the grounds that the defendant was unable to be present when the case was called on. There was a good defence to the action, the wrong person having been sued. Mr Pownall contended the reinstatement should not be granted unless costs were allowed his client

for bis travelling expenses from Woodville. Mr Bunny submitted tbat costs should not be allowed. The oase should be proceeded with, and the question of costs could be, afterwards decided, The Bench decided to grant the reinstatement for the next sittings of the Court, with counsel's expenses.