BILLS OF SALE AND DUMMIES.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7253, 8 March 1889, Page 3

BILLS OF SALE AND DUMMIES.

A STORY OF A DOGCART. AttheßesidentMagistrate'sCourt, Christchurch, yesterday, before Messrs Whitefoord, R.M., and R. Westenra, J.P., J. A. Radpath, grocer, &c, sued D. Stranaghan, commission agent, &c, for the sum of £36* 7s 6i under the following circumstances: — On September 16th plaintiff bought at auction —a bailiff's sale—a mare, dog. cart and harness for £15. After having them in his possession for some time he was served with a notice from the Mercantile Finance Company, claiming the effects under a bill of sale from one Pinching, the original owner, and requiring Redpath to hand them over. This he declined to do. The manager of the Company set a man on to get possession, and he one day found the turn-out standing outside Redpath's shop. He got into the trap, and while he was doing so Redpath came out and asked what he was doing. The man said, " Oh, Mr Redpath, Mr Russell (the manager) wants to see you: jump in and we will drive to his office." Redpath did not know why Russell should want to see him, but he got up and drove to Russell's office. He got out and went up to see Russell, leaving the trap outside. As soon as he was fairly upstairs the man drove it off. Russell explained to Redpath about Pinching, and asked him to give the trap, &c, up. Redpath refused, and left the office, only to find it gone. He went away in high dudgeon, swearing vengeance on the man who had ■worked such a clever dodge on him, but he had not gone far when be espied his turn-out standing hitched up to a post. He could scarcely believe his eyes; but there was nobody in charge, so he jumped in and did not pull rein till he found himself and chattels safe on his own premises. Having thus recovered them, he took care not to lose them again. Making inquiries, he found that Pinching had first given a bill of sale over them to the Company, and they did not register the instrument. Then Pinching gave Stranaghan, for money lent, another bill of sale over the same property. Stranaghan registered his bill, and on September 12th or 13th assigned it to one C. H. Mason, taking his gromissory note of £25 for it. Mason, on eptember 14th, gave instructions to a bailiff to eeize and sell the effects, and pay the proceeds to Stranaghan. The bailiff refused to have anything to do with Mason, and got another authority from Stranaghan. The things were seized, and Redpath bought as above stated. When Redpath became aware of these facts went to Stranaghan, and offered to ye the things up if he were repaid the £15 he had given for them. Stranaghan refused, said he must look to Mason, and finally took him to Mr Bruges, who told him that the claim of the Company was good, and he had better give the things up; this he declined to do. Redpach then went to Mr Stringer, who advised him. The Company then sued for the value of the things, and Mr Stringer at once wrote to Stranaghan, inviting him to defend the action, and thus prove his title against the Company, but the offer was not accepted. On February 22nd the Company got judgment against Redpath, who had to pay £20, the value of the horse, cart, and harness, £6 &3 costs as between party and party, and to his own solicitor fees amounting to £819s 6d. total, £16 7s 6d, for the recovery of which he now brought his action; defendant had paid £15 into Court. M Stringer appeared for Redpath, Mr Bruges for Stranaghan. Theplaintiffbavingdeposedtothe facts, Mr Stringer called the defendant who, in addition to details given above, said he was in the habit of assigning doubtful bills of sale to a third party to protect himself. The horse, trap, and harness were included in the bill of sale with other effects. He got a promissory note from Mason for £25 for it. The proceeds of the sale by the bailiff were £29, or net £24, which was not paid to Mason, but to him (Stranaghan). This was by arrangement between him, the bailiff, and Mason. The promissory note was not returned to Mason ; he (defendant) now produced it. Mason never saw the goods, but he had seen the schedule. The assignment was made to interpose Mason in case of proceedings such as this. To the Bench —Mason lived in St. Aeaph street; did not know much about him. To Mr Stringer—Did not see Mason sign the authority to the bailiff to sell; would not say that the authority—

body and signature—was not in the writing of Mr Goodman, who is in Mr Bruges office. It was like other writing, known to be Mr Goodman's, produced. He (defendant) gave the bailiff an authority to seize and sell " all effects under bill of sale from Pinching to mc." To the Bench —There is an alteration in the date of this authority from September 12th to September 13th. He could not say in whose writing. To Mr Bruges-You told Redpath to give up the trap. To the BeechDid not know Mason's signature. Got the promissory note signed by him from Mr Bruges' office. To Mr Stringer—Told Redpath that he must look to Mason. Tnls was all the evidence. Mr Bruges submitted that Redpath had been warited that the Company's claim was good, and if he had acted on that warning all the extra expense would have been saved. Defendant now offered to refund the £15 Redpath had paid at auction, and that was all he was entitled to. Mr Stringer replied. Mr Whitefoord said it would have been interesting to have before them Mr Goodman, who appeared to have written and signed the authority purporting to have been written and signed by Mason, who appeared to be a dummy, a buffer set up to meet awkward cases like this. Stranaghan, by not coming forward himself when invited, had clearly consented to the first action being defended by Redpath. In equity also there was no doubt Redpath should recover. Judgment for plaintin for the full amount claimed, with costs £4 13s.