Untitled

Lake Wakatip Mail, Volume II, Issue 68, 23 December 1863, Page 6

i Most Important.—The Argus says—" The Supreme Court decision in Holt v. Wedge, given a few days ago, negativing the right of a bailee of chattels to sell the same for his charges, ought to open the eyes of many people in Victoria to the illegal course they have so unceremoniously adopted during the last ten or twelve years, under the impression, as evinced by the adverj tisements constantly appearing in the daily jourI nals, to the effect that "if Mr So and So does not pay charges and remove his goods and chatj tels deposited with me within fourteen days, I rhey will be sold to defray expenses," they are : justified in such steps; and, in nine cases out of j ten, the goods are sold; and, in the same proportion, the original owners abandon their right and title to them, under the impression that the law sanctions such a course, which misunderstanding a perusal of the above case will soon set I right. Whether an alteration of the law may be advisable or not, is another question, as the present law cuts two ways. In the case in point, ; the chattel deposited was a mare, whose value | was subsequently increased by the addition of | three foals; and their agistment having ap--1 proached pretty nearly the value the paddockj keeper put upon them, he gave notice and realized ; them at auction, and against the owner's right to redeem them. Now, this illegal procedure may have appeared the best and speediest course ; for the defendant to have adopted but the result I is a verdict with nominal damages against the , defendant, who pays costs (perhaps some L 150), on both sides, a rather smarting salve for the care of the plaintiff's mare for some four years. This verdict may, perhaps, open the eyes of divers sundry store, paddock, and stable-keepers and such like, as to the risk they run in disposing of their neighbor's goods and chattels merely held on deposit, and sold, in hundreds of cases, in defiance of law."