RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 793, 25 March 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport, Friday, March 24 (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) DONXAIT T. BXIMTE. In this case judgment had been reserved. His Worship stated that the action had been brought to recover the sum of £SO, for the value of articles illegally detained, and the damage arising out of such detention. The non-suit point, raised on behalf of the defendant, was that, at least up to the night previous to Ins taking possession of the articles, tho plaintiff was associated with five others— working as miners ; and that tho names of those persons should have been joined with his as plaintiffs. Ho had considered the objection and concluded that the action must stand. If even tho plaintiff, in consequence of the abandonment by the rest of the party, had not become tho sole owner of theproperty, he was, at least, the sole possessor, and in that capacity was justified in bringing an action for any infringement of tho rights of the party. The defendant's proceeding had been a very highhanded, illegal, and unjustifiable one. Ho had no right in law or justice to act as ho had. Clearly not in law, as it provided the course to bo adopted by a creditor in securing his rights, nor yet in equity, as he wa3 not the sole creditor, and his act was highly prejudicial to tho interests of the remaining ' creditors. The only question would be, therefore, to assess the value of the articles detained, and the special damages caused by their detention, and he would add that, although the action did not lay for detinue, he should give a judgment that would admit of the defendant restoring the articles, if he should think fit, in place of paying their assessed value. He should fix the horse at .510, the plush at £o, and forage at £2 ss. The damage to plaintiff to bo recovered absolutely would be fixed at £5 with costs.

BISHOP V. UOLiraGS. In tli.is ease the summons had not boon served. Adjourned till Friday, 31st inst. BLACKCOCK T. DICKIiS'SOX. This was an action to recover £ll, the value of certain fixtures, alleged to have been illegally removed by the defendant from the freehold of the plaintiff. Mr Pitt, and with him Mr Bickerton Fisher, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Home for defendant. Mr Pitt stated that the plaintiff owned certain premises in Gladstone-street, and had let the same to the defendant, under an agreement which he produced. The agreement made no mention of fixtures. The defendant took possession and erected certain trade fixtures, valued at £ll, -which ho had reinovod. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant •possessed no right to remove them, and had brought the present action to recover their value. The law, ho might state, was very clear upon the subject, it being laid down that the tenant could remove fixtures only that were used for the purposes of manufacture. The exceptions included such articles as furnaces, soap-boilers, and brewers' utensils, &c. The fixtures that had been removed were not, however used for one especial purpose. The shelving, the counter, and the sliding windows were equally adapted for a draper, bookseller, or other tradesman as for a tobacconist. He was quite satisfied that they co.ild not come within the particular exemptions which had been cited, Counsel then called the following witnesses:— John Blackloek: I am the plaintiff in this action. I own certain premises in Gladstone street, which I let to Mr Dickinson in September last. The agreement produced is the one I let the premises under. I made certain substantial improvements at Mr Dickinson's request. Mr Dickinson put up the shelving and counter, and windows. We had a conversation subsequently in respect to leaving; ho said that he was going to take the fixtures out. I said if he did so, it would be at his own risk. Ho told me the fixtures had cost him £ll. He offered to let me have the fixtures for £4. The defendant has left the place ; he gave me the key on Monday last. On visiting the premises, I found that all the fixtures had been removed. After giving me the key, he took me up to the place, and paid me the rent. John Harrison, carpenter, in the employ of Messrs Bull and Bond, proved having done some work for Mr Dickinson, in the shop in Gladstone street. He erected shelving, counter, and a couple of sliding sashes. The shelving was fastened by nails to tho wall. It was a framed counter. The sliding sashes ran in a groove ; tho sashes were perfect in themselves ; one fillet would have to bo removed to tako the sashes away. He recollected a man named Warno coming and examining the fixtures. John Warne, carpenter, knew the premises occupied by Mr Dickinson. In consequence of Mr Schulhoff's instructions, witness went to see the fixtures, to ascertain whether they were removable. Tho shelves were fastened with nails to the wall, and the counter to the floor. The sashes slided within fillets. Each shelf was supported by a filler and uprights.

Mr Homo claimed a nonsuit. The law, lie said, was as old as tbo hills, which permitted a tonant to remove any trade fixtures. As to the special purpose for which the other side had contended that fixtures must be used, it must fall to the ground. A steam engine would be equally useful in driving a cotton factory or a woollen mill, or, in fact, in assisting the production of most articles of commerce. It was well blown that public house fixtures could bo moved; but tho law went further, and exempted articles of ornamentation, such as mantelpieces, cornices, pier glasses, whether nailed or secured by other means. His Worship said that as ho should require time to consider tho nonsuit point, he would prefer that all the evidence should bo heard then. Thomas Dickinson: lam the defendant in this case. The fixtures were put up by Messrs Bull and Bond, for which I paid £6 12s Gd. Nothing was nailed but the shelves. Cross-examined: I told Mr Blacklock he could have tho fixtures for £4. Ido not recollect saying anything to Mr Sehulhoff about the fixtures.

Walter Bull corroborated the defendant's evidence. The work was dono by contract, and ho believed the price was £{i 2s 6d. Thomas Dickinson, recalled, stated that he was not in the shop when Warne examined the fixtures. Tho counter was not nailed. It wa3 moved in its entirety. After hearing counsel on both sides, his Worship reserved judgment until Tuesday next. CATtNE V. BULL. The plaintiff in this case, a blacksmith, sued for the recovery of .£l2 for labor and goods supplied. Tho defendant, who is a miner at tho North Beach, asked for the case to be adjourned to enable him to confer with his mates as to the correctness of the account. He had not received the summons until Wednesday evening, and had had no opportunity of seeing his partners. He also objected to the hearing, on tho grounds that the plaintiff had never rendered an account or made a demand for the money before taking action.

The plaintiff was then examined in respect to his reason for applying for an immediate summons. He stated that tho plaintiff's party had informed him that ho had better sue, as they could not work tho ground, and did not know what they were likely to do. His Worship did not consider the ground stated sufficient to have justified the application for a short summons, and granted the adjournment. Costs to be decided at the hearing. STITT BROS. V. SMITH. Tho plaintiffs sued the defendant, who is a married woman, for the sum of £lO, value of goods supplied, Mr Pitt, with Mr Fisher, appeared for (he defendant. Tho plaintiffs stated that thov had supplied tho goods to the defendant herself, and not to her husband. She wa3 living by herself, was carrying on business in her own name, and had obtained a protection order in May IS6O. The goods were delivered in, and subsequent to October, 1860. Judgment reserved.