DISTRICT COURT.

Evening Post, Volume XVII, Issue 322, 17 January 1879, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before Judge Mansford.) Trustees in the estate of Alexander Macdonald v. Joseph Nathan. — The following gentlemen were sworn in on the jury in this case : — T. Armstrong, J. Armstrong, T. Arens, and Lawrence Arens, juu. This was an action to recover £200 for the wrongful conversion of the furniture of a boarding-house on the Terrace, known as York House. Two grounds of defence were set up— one that the furniture belonged to the defendant, and was simply leased to Macdonald together with the house ; and tbe other that the defendant distrained the goods for arrears of rent. Mr. Edwards appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Gordon Allan for the defendant. Mr. Edwards, in opening the case, took a technical objection to two totally inconsistent defences being set up. He argued, with regard to the first plea of the defendant, that where any person allowed a baukrupt to retain his goods apparently as his own possession, and the bankrupt, upon the strength of that possession, obtained credit from any person, the original owner could not afterwards set up a title to those goods. , With regard to the distraint, Mr. Edwards urgod that it amounted to an admission on the part of Nathan tbat the furniture belonged to Macdonald. Messrs. Wise, F. B. Holmwood, and Bar bar, creditors of Macdonald, were called, and deposed that they would not have allowed Macdonald credit to such an extent, had they not believed that the furniture belonged to him. A bailiff named Walsh, who was placed in charge of the furniture by Mr. Dimant, the creditors' trustee, deposed to the conversion. Mr. Dimant also gave evidence. Mr. Gordon Allan, addressing the Court for the defence, said that the house and furniture were let to Macdonald by Nathan at a rent of £10 per week, under' an agreement for the lease. Ho, therefore, contended that the goods were not at the order and disposition of the bankrupt, and therefore could not be sold for the benefit of the creditors. Assumiug, however, that they did pass to the possession of the trustee in the bankruptcy, he argued that the defendant had a right to distrain for the rent due. The distraint realised £57, which was not sufficient to satisfy the rent due before the bankruptcy. Witnesses were then called for the defence, and the case had not concluded when we went to press. '