CIVIL SITTINGS.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3566, 13 December 1882, Page 3

CIVIL SITTINGS.

This Day.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice GillleB.) His Honor took his seat at 10 a.m Muldoon v. John wall.

A common jury was sworn in, with Mr W. Waterhouse as foreman.

Mr Kenny appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Brassey for the defendant. Mr Kenny said this was an action for excessive distress. The plaintiff, John Muldoon, was a small farmer carrying on business in Poverty Bay, who bad the misfortune to have an action brought against him in the Gisborne Resident Magistrate's Court, in which judgment was given for the plaintiff, a Mr Wall, for £90 odd. There could be little doubt but that the magistrate's judgment in the case was wrong, as there was no written agreement proved on the part of tbe then defendant Muldoon. Notice of appeal had been given, but notwithstanding that the present defendant, then the plaintiff, took out a distress warrant, and on the same evening that judgment was given in the R.M. Court seized the goods of Muldoon. Amongst other effects seized were 131 bags of grass seed, the value of which was not less than £136, whereas tbe amount to be levied, including costs, only amounted to £107 odd. Besides this grass seed the present defendant Wall also took seven horses, seven ploughs, a cart, a tarpaulin, a number of empty sacks, and other articles, which the defendant had removed that night to Gisborne. The teizure of the things being made in the night, and the removal occupying a considerable time, a great quantity of tbe grass seed, which was valued- at 5s 3d per bushel, was wasted. A gate between Muldoon's and another farmer's property had also been left open, and in consequence damage was occasioned to a very great extent. The goods having been removed into Gisborne some time elapsed before the sale took place. A portion of the things were then sold, and although the sale was a sacrifice, Wall, finding that he had enough to satisfy his claim, stopped the sale as regarded the horses. [Mr Kenny concluded his address by going into figures with a view to showing that nearly~£ 400 worth of goods had been seized to satisfy a demand of £107.]

The issues submitted to the jury were —(1) Was there excessive distraint. 9 C 2) Was it made by the direct authority, direction, and active assistance of the present defendant ? (3) What amount was the plaintiff entitled to recover as damages ? A number of witnesses were called on either side, and the case was still proceeding when we went to press.