DISTRICT COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XIV, Issue 1692, 6 January 1874, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT, AHAURA.

\\J '. V-;. ' Satdkday, January 3. , (Before hia Honor Judge Harvey.) *. ( . : '/ ;'•■'; ';■" ciyii, oases. : . • ."■'.' 6'Bourke; v. Wakefield— An action to • recover r damages and special damages • for loss : sustained by reason of the i! alleged negligence of the defendant, ,' the ' bailiff ■ of the Resident Magis•''trateV !i (iJ6art at' No Town, in not seiring and selling certain property at No L "T/he ; plaintiff claimed Ls7. .The ' facts were that Margaret;. Of ßprke'^the. plaintiff, obtained a verdict, in the Eeaident Magistrate's Court, No-Town, against n an kotelkeeper. named Duncan M'Kenzie. The; directions i.in the distress warrant ,• -which, followed the .^eirdict were that ithe r rabailiff was..'.to;;levy l ' on the 'house, with z+ everything in it^jthe ;property of the defendant M'Kenzie. Among other chattels wasfl seeing machipe, which was claimed; jul her property by. Miss Perry, a young staying in the hotel. The !.^b J^nse i and contents besides were claimed r,: jDyiquier, persons. The cause of the present jj actipn[,was thatythe. sewing machine was j).;not:the property of Miss Perry, but ol M/Eenzie, , and > that the: bailiff: should ; have -sold Ut in satisfaction [ of. Miss O'Rodrke's distress warrant. The plaintiff ' claimed. L7 1 as the value of the sewing " ' ' rr machine' '• and LSO as damagesr On ' 'the defendant being called he did not J ' appear personally, but Mr Staite said that . f ,Mr Guinness, who was 'for the plaintiff, should have subpoened the defendant if

he wished him (the defendant) tb give evidence damaging to his own case. After argument his Honor, on reading the plea set up by the defendant, said it was for the plaintiff to prove :that the bailiff was aware tbe peeing machine was the property of 'M'&enzie, and' having', this knowledge' he refused, to levy upon if to the prejudice of .the person at, whose request the distress was issued. On referrinj? to the "Resident Magistrate's Act, 1867," the'CoUrt wasof opinion that there must ibe very conclusive evidence to sustain :an action against the Sheriff, in .who^e position the bailiff was. That officer was not omniscient, and could not be expected to have an instinctive knowledge of, the ownership of all the chattels he might levy, upon under a distress warrant. The plaintiff must prove the bailiff's negligence, after 'he was made : aware of" the ownership of the chattel in . question. Mr GHip.ness said the bailiff; was directed distinctly 'to seize "every-; thing in the house," and inter alia the machine was there. His Honor said^this was not sufficient. A. distress warrant from the Resident Magistrate's Court was^ different from a distress for rent, in the' case of a service for which everything; found in the house was annexed. But on the other hand the bailiff would "make himself liable for damages if it could be: Bhowrithat he made a wrongful Beiznre of a single article under a distress warrant from the Resident . IVlagistrate's Court. Mr Guinness then applied for an adjournment to enable him to produce the bailiff, who he said was purposely kept) out of the way. The Court refused the adjourn-i ment, and after taking evidence as, to the Tacts of the issue of the warrant, and of the seizure ; pr.. non-seizure^the plaintiff was nonsuited 'oh the "grounds that proceedings should have been taken in the; "matter before thb 'Resident ■' Magistrate, • and that -the bailiff, - who, >vas the Sheriff,; was" not responsible, ho ' not j knowing whose property the sewing machine, was — : costs against the plaintiff. I^' l Mr"Gluinne3S froth ;the plaintiff ; Mr ■ Staita. for the defendant. , ! „ -../' f M'Ginlay v. Wakefield.— This was an action . to recover LIOO as dannages fpr levying on and selling -certain cattle, the 'ailißged property of the plaintiff. .Tbe .facts were. that the defendant, the bailiff iof^ithe Resident . Magistrate's Court, t Ahaura, , seized several head of cattle 'atnong ether property, at the" suit of D, , Magoffih and others against one Charles ' Classon. After the Beizure, the plaintiff ; dlaimed the cattle by virtue of an alleged purchase from Classon. The bailiff issued tan interpleader summons, which was heard .-before- the Resident .Magistrate's' Court, 'at Ahanra.. The Magistrate held that the plaintiff, who was the defendant on the interpleader, in the Court tielow, "•'clid- 1 ' not ' make goPd ".; his- claim, and the bailiff was directed to sell v ithe cattle for the benefit of the, creditors of .Classen.., . The defendant entered a most voluminous plea in answer 'to the action, and Mr Staite, who appeared for him, moved for a nonsuit on several grounds. The point most relied upon was that .the case had already been adju- j dicated upon by .the Resident Magistrate, j The Judge upheld the" objection, declining, as the case was now presented, to Y,jtaterfer.e, with the verdict, of. the lower " Court. Costs against the'' plaintiff.'- Mr — G,uinuess_fpr the plaintiff, Mr Staite for the "defendant ."."^ "^ ""', "~ -