SEIZING A PIANO.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4805, 21 August 1894, Page 3

SEIZING A PIANO.

His Honor the Chief Justice and a jury of twelve, of which Mr W. Grill was foreman, woro occupied yesterday in hearing the case of Eva Blanche Donnelly v Frederick Jas, Pinney, claim £5Ol damages for the wrongful seizure of a piano. Mr J. P, Campbell appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Skerrett for defendant. The statement of claim sot out that on June 21,1890, the defendant sold to the plaintiff a piano for £SB, including interest and insurance, payable by instalments of £2 por month; that on or about December 21,1890, the defendant fraudulently induced the plaintiff to execute a bailment, which did not set out the true contract between plaintiff and defendant j that plaintiff paid the sum of £SB before May 23,1894, and that on that day tho defendaut wrongfully took possession of and carried away the piano, and had since held possession of it. She theroforo claimed tho roturn of the money paid and damages £5Ol The -defendant, in reply, declared' that the plaintiff signed the bailment in consequence of the first agreement not having been registered, and that it set out the contract between them. The contract was really made with plaintiff's mother, but at hor request the plaintiff's namo was inserted in the agreement, The greater part of tho instalments were paid by plaintiff's father and mother, and that many payments were in arrear, and that defendant, as ho bad power to do undor the agreement, seized the piano. The jury retired at 9.50 p.m., and returned at 10.15, when tho foreman asked whether it was within their power to return a three-fourths verdict, MrSkerrettsaidthc parties wero prepared to take a tbreofourths verdict, and His Honour, accordingly directed them they could bring in such a verdict if they liked, The jury again returned at 10.40 p.m., with tho following answers to issues presented to them:—(la) Was the sale on terms in thoprintedform ? Yes (earned by three-fourths majority); or (lb) was it a sale out and out for £SB, payablo by instalments, but no condition!- as to insurance or interest on overduo instalments ? No; or (lc) was it a bailment for £SB only ? No. (2) Did tho plaintiff execute tho bailmont in Jauuaiy, 1890 ? Yes (by three-fouiths majority), (3) Did the plaintiff know tho torms of tho bailment of December, 1890, when sLo executed it ? Yes (by three-fourths majority). (4) In making the payments by instalments after December, 1890, did sho know in substanco tho terms of the bailment and not repudiate them ? Yes (by three-fourths majority). (5) Was £s6paidin instalments or£sß ? £56 (by eloven-twelfth majority). (0), What damages, if any, is tho' plaintiff entitled to recover ? None. The jury added they were unanimously of opinion that upon tho paymout by Miss Donnelly of £8 9s 4d, tho piano should bo returned, Mr Skerrett said ho would undertake to see that tho opinion of the jury was earned out. . Judgment was entered up for defendant, with costs on tho highest sade. Mr Skerrott sajd ho ■woaldnot ask His Honor to certify for a special jury.— N,Z. lima,