SUPREME COURT.

Bush Advocate, Volume XXII, Issue 67, 21 March 1910, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

ALLEGED WRONGFUL SEIZURE

MUGRIDGE AND DOBSON v

SMITH

(Wanganui Herald, of Saturday.)

The above case was commenced at the Supreme Court yesterday morning. Mr Lloyd, of Dannevirke, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr MacKay for the defendant. The following jury was empanelled : Messrs W. Gardiner, L. Brandon, J. Hugill, J. Ivendrick, D. J. Bell, A. A. Gower, H. Brown, J. Calver, W . Ingram, J. M'Gregor, M. J. Power. Mr John Calver was chosen foreman. The statement of claim filed by the plaintiff Thomas Mugridge alleges that on November 10, 1909,' while four horses belonging to the plaintiff were being driven as leaders in a waggon belonging to the plaintiff, with two horses of the plaintiff in the shafts, the four leading horses were wrongfully seized by the defendant, and despite the protests of the driver, a servant of the plaintiff, were driven away with the harness they were wearing. Also, that a black draught gelding that the, plaintiff had lent to one Hector M'Lean had been wrongfully seized by the defendant, and that the defendant had- wrongfully seized five horses belonging to the plaintiff, together with a four-wheeled timber waggon and harness for five horses. The defendant had attempted to sell the above chattels. The plaintiff claims (a) the immediate return of the said ten horses, two waggons, and nine sets of harness, or £550 if possession cannot be had; (b) £l5O damages for trespass; (c) an injunction restraining the defendant from selling any of the said chattels, parting with the proceeds of any sale of them, or further interference. The statement of claim filed by the plaintiff Walter Dobson states that the plaintiff is the transferee of the instrument by way of- security dated Juno 7, 1909, given by the defendant to one Alexander Grant, comprising ten horses named therein. The moneys secured by the instrument are still unpaid, and the defendant has committed breaches of the said instrument by selling two of the horses comprised in the instrument, and by removing five of them from the place where they were covenanted to be kept, and by attempting to sell them. The plaintiff had taken possession ofthe said horses, but the defendant had since wrongfully seized the said horses, with the two waggons and nine sets of harness. The plaintiff claims the return of the said chattels or £550 and £l5O damages for detention, and an injunction similar to that claimed by the other plaintiff. The statement of defence was a complete denial of the allegations contained in the statement of claim. The defendant had filed a statement of counter claim, alleging that the plaintiffs seized and took from the defendant seventeen horses, two waggons, and nine sets of harness, and fifteen horse covers, and that the plaintiffs still retain several of the .said chattels. The defendant claimed the return of the said chattels, or £4OO, if the chattels cannot be returned, and £2OO damages. The jury decided in favor of the plaintiffs with £2OO damages, but the decision was upset on account of the technical invalidity of the bill of sale. His Honor (Mr Justice Edwards) gave judgment for defendant Smith without costs., but stayed execution pending the questioii. of the action of the bill writ. In the case of 'Smith v. Mugridge and Patterson, for malicious prosecution and wrongful arrest, the jury brought in a verdict for the defendants on all counts, and his Honor allowed costs on the highest scale. On the bill writ, his Honor refused Smith leave to defend, and judgment will be taken out immediately at Palmerston North.