DISTRICT COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue 7388, 14 February 1902, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Friday, February 14.

(Before His Honor Mr District Judge

Kettle.)

MOGARVIB V JURY.

The case McGarvie v. Jury, a claim for damages for trespass, was resumed. Robert Spence, solicitor, said on tho 24tb December Mr and Mrs McGarvie called at his office, and he demanded the rent due to Jury. They said they oould not pay unless a reduction were made. Witness said he would have to Beize Mr McGarvie's cows, and no protest was made to the effect that they were Mra McGarvie's. A distress warrant was issued.

A long legal argument took place on the question as to the legality of the distraint.

The judge's ruling on the question of law was reserved. His Honor pointed out that the statement of olaim alleged conversion. Mr Malone Baid at the outset he had distinctly stated that the cattle had been -.returned, and that there would be no claim on the ground of conversion. He relied on the grounds of trespass and assault. His Honor held that no amendment of the statement of olnim oould be made at that stage, and the question of conversion must go to the jury. His Honor said that, subject to his decision on the law point raised, the questions the jury would have to answer were : —

1. What damage, if any, is plaintiff entitled to with respect of the seizure of the 7th ?

2. Did defendant assault plaintiff on the 4th, and, if so? what damages waa she entitled to ?

8. What damages, if any, plaintiff is entitled to in respect to the charge of trespass ? Mr Barton, addressing the jury, pointed out that there had been no con version, and even if the jury found that the cattle had been unlawfully taken, nominal damages, say, 6d, would meet the case.

Mr Malone said the jury must feel that this was a case in which a great wrong had been done, and the jury should give his client reasonable damages. His Honor was sorry the jury should have been kept for a day and a half over a case which might have been settled in an hour by the magistrate at Stratford. After giving an outline of the evidence whioh had been adduced, His Honor said the jury had to consider whether defendant had or bad not acted bona fide, believing he was aoting within his legal rights. Tv considering the question of assault the jury should take into account all the surrounding circumstances. No special damage had been claimed or proved for the alleged wrongfnl conversion. On the first issue the jury assessed the damages at £15, on the second at £1, and on the third at £15.