THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 4417, 10 July 1884, Page 3

THIS DAY.

At the opening of the Court this morning tho hearing of the case of J. McKinlay v. l. 1). Nathan was resumed, Mr E. Hesketh at onco proceeding to state tho defence. After this] lie called Charles Chambers, agent for Messrs L. 1). Nathan and Co. at Tauranga, who was examined at some length. J. It. Neighbour, commission agent at Tauranga, William Simpson, carter, and Joseph F. Buddie, also euve evidence. Learned counsel having then been heard upon the evidence adduced. His Honor said that he looked upon the defendant's action in this matter as a very highhanded outrage which could not be justified in any way. If he believed that ho had honafidis under the bill of sale, that did not make any differencp, seeing that if ho hid looked nt the bill of sale he must havo seen that he had such righls. It was a remarkable thing that, having this bill of sale, ho should not havo done anything for so long a period, but have allowed the plaintiff to remain in actual possession of his leased premises for a whole year before making any claim uoon him. Ho thought thnt under the circumstances, not only was the defendant not justified in breaking, as was admitted, into the plaintiff's promises, but that tnero was not even any reasonable excuso for it. As to the goods seized upon and removed, thoro had not bcon. one tittle of evidence to show that a single article of these was included in thogoods meDiioned in the bill of sals, and yet it w. s (he duty of the defendant to havoassured himself of that. Unquestionably the defondant was a wrong-doer in the matter. Looking to tho facts of ihe outrage, he held that the plaintiif was entitled to considerable damage, v pon such outrages the law looked very seriously, for they were calculated to lend to griu-e brunches of lho peace. Tho plaintilf in this case must have been a very good-tempered man. orolse he must have rosiated the violent outrage made upon himself and his family. According to thu whole facts, tho wrongful seizure of goods by breaking open tho h use, and ttieir sale, as well as the injury to tho trade and reputation of plaintiff resulting therefrom, ho considered that he was not giving them too large damages in assessing them at £150. Judgment would therefore be given for the plaintiir for that amount, with costs, according to tho lowor scale.

Colonial Bank of New Zkaland v. James Dunlop.—Claim, £289 Is 7<l, for money lent to defendant and paid on his account, with interest thereon. Tho ca3e was undefended.—Mr James Russell, for tho plaintifra, therefore stated the ense, and proved the claim by tho evidence of Percy DalP, ledger-keeper at the bank.-Judg-ment was then given for the amount claimed.