DISPUTE OVER CHATTELS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLVIII, Issue 4475, 16 February 1917, Page 6

DISPUTE OVER CHATTELS.

ANOTHER CLAIM IN THE JOYCE ESTATE. MAGISTRATE’S COURT ACTIONThe only defended action at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday was one in which. A. A. Adams (Mr Finn), -claimed from Mrs E. A. Joyce (Mr Mann), the return of certain articles or their value, winch was set down at .£27 17s 9d. A claim for £lO damages for the removal of the articles was made in the statement of claim but was abandoned by plaintiff's solicitor during the hearing of his case. The articles in dispute included Venetian blinds, curtain poles, a gas stove and a gun. The case was heard by Mr W, A. Barton, S.M. In opening his case Mr. Finn remarked that it was an action which should have been settled out of Court hut it had been found impossible to do so. He referred to previous cases in the Supreme Court between the parties and to a decision of the Chief Justice in which certain recommendation lia’d been made. By an order of Hie Supreme Court plaintiff became entitled to the whole estate but hflu allowed defendant to remain in a certain bouse for some time. At the time of her removal there was a sale of furniture, and when defendant left certain of the furniture was removed. He had written to defendant hut had not received a reply until four days after the summons had been issued. He was still willing to settle the matter out of Court. Evidence as to the value or some of the articles in the dispute,Venetian and holland blinds, and curtain poles, was of von bv Mr John Townley. The furniture in the house was sold bv public auction, and evidence was given bv the auctioneer, Mr George Miller, ‘to the effect that he did not sell any Venetian blinds at Mrs. Joyce’s sale An offer was made ]” ” vately hut the sale was not completed. Thev were offered for sale the second 4 ;iy , but no sale eventuated. I lie curtain poles also did not -ind a

purchaser. , , , To Mr Maun: The blinds were delivered to Mr Mann’s office, about a fortnight ago. The poles and blinds -were sent to witness’s auction room, bv the defendant about four oi in e days after the sale. Some of the poles may have been sold. Ine gas stove also came down to the rooms mud witness made defendant an offer foi it 7s Gel which was accepted. Witness had to spend £2 12s 6d to put the stove in good order Harry Prime ironmonger, said that be was a tenant in the house, and had fitted up all the rooms with linen blinds at a cost of about £4. Evidence was given by John Dodds, clerk at the Gisborne Gas Company, that the company fitted in Octobei, 1915, a new stove for the house, costing £7 8s 9d. . . , , Sydney Ledger, a son of defendant, .rave evidence that the gun m question was now in his possession. Lhe witness said that he had seen the late Mr Joyce using the gun about lb months or two years before Ins death. He received the gun at the request of Mr Joyce. ■ Mr Mann submitted that there was no case for him to answer as the plaintiff was not present and he had had no opportunity of cross-examining him. , ... His Worship said that he uul not think so. The point was whether the articles had been taken by defendant and whether they belonged to plaintiff. Personally he did not think that it was a matter that should have come to Court at all. Mr Mann said that the apparent unwillingness of the defendant to come to a settlement was that the judgment- of the Chief Justice had not been satisfied. lie had written to the plaintiff intimating that be was willing to settle when all the. terms of the judgment had been carried out, but lie had received no answer to these letters. Mr Mann added that after the effects had been delivered to him lie wrote to the plaintiff stating he had certain effects and wanted instructions as to their disposal He stated that the day the summons was issued he had intimated to the plaintiff’s solicitor that the defendant was prepared to hand over the blinds. He contended that the gun was a personal effect, in view His Honor’s decision, and that defendant was entitled to it. The ease was adjourned in order that further legal argument regarding the gun might be heard.