(Beforo E. H. Carew, Esq., S.M.) In the previously-heard interpleader case of H. F. Hardy v. Mary Christie, His Worship gave judgment as follows: The fir3t question is whether the addition of " Law Clerk, Dunedin " in Mr Grant's affidavit is a sufficient compliance with section 49, Chattels Transfer Act, If 89, .which requires the occupation and residence of the attesting witness to be given. The cases cited go to show that a minute or strictly exatt description is not obligatory, but the description must be reasonably certain and not misleading. I can see no objection to the words "law clerk" in describing the occupation. Like "bankclerk" and "insurance clerk," it is commonly used, and would be well understood; and unlt3S it is necessary for a clerk describing his occupation also to show in whose office or service he is in (and I feel satisfied that is not necessary) I don't know how his occupation could be better described. The sufficiency of the word "Dunedin" to describe Mr Grant's place of residence is not so clear, but the effect of deciding to the contrary would be that what.is a perfectly honest transaction would be held to be' fraudulent and void for some purposes under the Act. In the case Briggs v, Boss (L.R. 3, Q. 8.. 268) a similar question was raised as to whether the description given of the attesting witness as "Accountant, Hamley," was sufficient. It seems to me that the occupation given there was slightly misleading, and the town of Hamley contained a population of 40,000, yet the description was held to be suffi-' cient. Dunedin City, at the last census, contained under 29,000 people, and I think that an ordinary man with a reasonable amount of intelligence, making inquiries of such persons as he would do if he wanted to find Mr Grant, would succeed without any real difficulty. I think lam justified jn holding that the description is sufficient. I am better satisfied with this conclusion because I think the position of the execution creditor is not worse than it would be if the bailment was held to be void as against the bailiff. The interpretation I place on section 25 is that if a bailment i 3 held void under that section, a bailiff executing a warrant can disregard it as a bailment only, but he cannot seize a bailor's goods to satisfy the bailee's debt. I think the bailiff has no right to sell the goods he has seized, but that he can sell the bailee's interest under the bailment. Judgment for the claimants Brundell and Hayward and John Wright, with costs (£9 Is). Mr Calyert appeared for Mr J. Wright, Mr A. S. Adams for Messrs Brundell and Hayward, and Mr Haggitt for Mr Hardy, the execution creditor.
Esmond O'Donnell (for whom Mr Gallaway appeared) v. James Gawne (Tiraaru).—Claim, £i 153 4d, for goods supplied.—Judgment by default, with costs. Thomson, Bridger and Co. (for whom Mr Moore appeared) v. John Tiercy (Becks).— Claim, £ls 0s Bd, for goods supplied.—Judgment by default, with costs. Masßey-Harris Company (for whom Mr Cook appeared) y. John Black (Maheno).—Claim, £23 15,8, on a promissory note.—Judgment by default, with costs. Same' v. 'William Apes (Karitane).—Claim, £sl9s 3d, on a promissory note.—Judgment by default, with costs.
Anthony Mann v. John Davis, sen.—Claim, £3 15s, for feeding, stabling,' and shoeing the defendant's horse. —Mr Solomon appeared for plaintiff.—After eviderce judgment was given for £3 5s and costs.
Permanent link to this item
MAGISTRATE'S COURT., Evening Star, Issue 10474, 18 November 1897