IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXII, Issue 30, 5 February 1891, Page 5

IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

BRABANDERE V. LAING.

Ax important judgment was given at the Resident Magistrate's Court this morning by Dr, J. Giles, R.M., in the case Brabandero v, Laing, which is the conclusion of a, prolonged legal contest in respect of the ownership of certain cattle. In tho first instance, in a easo Lain? againsb York, judgment was given for Laing, whereupon Laing issued execution and directed bailiffs to seize certain cattlo which he said were York's, but which Brabandere said were his. In an interpleader case, Brabandere v. Laing, tha cattlo were judged to be Brabandere's, and the action now to be decided was brought by Brabandere against Laing for damages. Mr F. E. Baume (for Dr. Laishley) appeared for the plaintiff", and Mr Johnston for the defendant. His Worship gave judgment as follows : — This was, he said, an action for damages for wrongful seizure of cattle. The plaintiff was the successful claimant in an interpleader case in which tho defendant, as execution creditor, had directed the bailiff to seize certain bullocks believed to be the property of the execution debtor, but to which the present plaintiff established a preferable claim. Mr Johnston, for the defendant, had contended that after an interpleader summons had been heard and determined no further action would lia in respect of the goods seized, or, at all events, none in respect of the seizure and keeping of the goods, as distinguished from any special tort committed in connection with them. There were certainly cases which went strongly to suppore this view, bub they were contradicted by other authorities, and he could not find that the poinb had ever been expressly determined. His Worship dealt exhaustively with authorities on the subject, and summed up as follows :—lb appears from these cases thab it has nob been judiciallydecided that interpleader proceedings are a bar to subsequenb action for damages, or thab the County Court could take cognisance of a claim for damages on an interpleader trial. Ib is true thab strong opinions to that effeeb have been expressed by eminenb judges, but other judges, in later cases, have expressed strong opinions the other way, and in Mercer v. Stanbury the decision was given upon tho ground thab whatever the County Court could do, still ib had not ad« judicated upon any claim for damages. But the Legislature seemed to have done whab ib could to make certain what the Courts had left in doubb. The thirty-first section of the County Courts Act, 1867, expressly provides thab the County Court shall adjudicate upon interpleader as to all damages arising out of the execution, and in Death v. Harrison the interpleader judgment was held to be a bar to any further action against the execution creditor. The enactment section 31, of the Act of 1867, seema bo show thab under the old Act the County Court could nob entertain claims for damages upon interpleader proceedings, and, if fehat is so, then neither could the 11.M. Courb in New Zealand entertain such claims. In the present case tho execution creditor has made himself responsible by directing the bailiff whab goods to seize, and I am of opinion that the plaintiff is not barred by the interpleader proceedings from suing the execution creditor for any special damage arising from the seizure and detention o£ his goods. Ib seems to be rather the case thab the interpleader proceedings, by establishing his claim to the goods, puts him in a position to bring his action. Bub I considered the plaintiff's account of his special damage a rather vague story, and I do not) see my way to award him under thab head more than forty shillings, for which amount he will have judgment with costs.