R.M. COURT.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 314, 2 June 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

(Before J. Allen, Esq., R.M.) Friday, June 1. CIVIL CASES. W. Acton Adams v Thomas Carter. Adjourned for a fortnight. Lower Wairau River Board v Edward Augustus. —Judgment in this case, which was to have been given as this sitting of the Court, wa3 further reserved until the Bth inst.

Blenheim Borough Council v George Carter. —Judgment was also reserved in this case until Friday next, Bth inst. James Gray v James O’Shea, a claim of Ll 9s 6d. —On the applicatios of Mr M'Callum, who appeared for plaintiff, the case was adjourned for a week. John Killen v George M'Donakl (Spring Creek), claim L 7 7s 2d for wages due.— Mr Rogers appeared for plaintiffs, Mr M'Callum for defendant. Plaintiff paid 30s, and 10s costs, into Court, in full satisfaction of the claim.—Mr Rogers said the dispute was whether plaintiff should be paid 7s per day for harvest work, or 20s per week. —John Killen, the plaintiff, stated that when ho went to work for plaintiff no arrangement whatever was made as to wages during harvest time, and so bethought ho was entitled to 7 s per day, which was about the average wage for harvest laborers. He did not tell defendant that he was hard up, and would take any kind of a job.—For the defence, Mr M'Callum called three natives, named Samuel Mason, Watson and M’Donald, jun., who all swore that they were present when defendant engaged plaintiff. Plaintiff said that he was bard up, and would be glad of any kind of a job, whereupon defendant said that he would take him on and give him 20s per week and found, if he would work for that wa ir e right through the harvest. Plaintiff was quite agreeable to this arrangement. His Worship gave judgment for Ll 10s (the amount paid into Court), and Ll 6s (exclusive of the 10s paid into Court). May Grace v. H. L. Reed, a claim of of L 5 for wrongful dismissal. In this ease application bad been made to have the plaintiff’s evidence taken beforo the R.M. at Blenheim. Mr Rogers appeared for plaintiff, whose evidence was taken aa applied for. INTERPLEADER CASE. His Worship delivered judgment in the inteipleader case, Taylor Bros. v. J. Old, which was heard at tho R.M. Court on May 18. Mr Rogers appeared for the claimants, Ada Old and John Tucker Robmson ; Mr Conolly appeared for Taylor Bros. Judgment was delivered as follows :—“ I find upon the facts admitted that on tho 17th day of November, 1882, a bill of sale was givon by Joseph Old to James Pratt over certain furniture and effects named in tho bill of salo, tho property of tho said Joseph Old, to socure the repayment of a loan of L 75. This bill of sale was registered on the 17th day of November, 1882. On the 19th day of December, 18S6, James Pratt assigned his interest in this bill of salo to John Tucker Robinson and Ada Old on their paying him the amount of L7o. Tho assignment was registered on tho 20th December, 1886. The money paid to James Pratt was paid out of money left by will to the two daughters of Joseph Old. The five years allowed for registration of bills of salo without renewal expired on tho 17th day of November, 1887, and the registration of the bill of sale has not been renewed. In the case Taylor Bros. v. Old, in the Resident Magistrate s Court a distress was duly issued on tho Ist May last for the amount of Ll 7 os 6d and costs Ll 3s. The bailiff entered and seized the chattels then upon the premises occupied by Joseph Old, whereupon a claim to the chattels seized was put in by Ada Old, his daughter, and John Tucker Robinson Upon the facts admitted, I find that the claimants are in the same position that James Pratt would have been placed in under similar circumstances, had he not assigned over his interest in the bill of sale, viz, they are the holders of an unregistered bill of sale. Whether the bill of sale is absolutely void against all parties, or only void as against a seizure by the bailiff under process issued out of the Resident Magistrate’s Court, is not a question for me now to decide; I have only to decide the question as between the claimants and the bailiff. I find that the chattels named in the bill of sale were the absolute property of Joseph Old when he gave the said bill of sale, and it must be presumed that they were still his property on the 9th December, 1886, when the assignment was made by Pratt. I find that there is no evidence to show that there was any seizure or sale of the chattels under the bill of salo, or any evidence to show that the chattels ever passed out of the possession cr ownership of Joseph Old. Hiss Old lives now and has always lived in the house occupied by Joseph Old, and no doutt has made use of the furniture and effects named in the bill of sale, but they have remained in the apparent possession of Joseph Old. The claimants probably have still a lieu upon the chattels named subject now to the claim under the distress warrant, which lien can be discharged _ any day by the payment of the L 75. i do not seo. that they have proved ownership. Section 4 of the Chattel Securities Act, 1880, is perfectly clear that an unregistered bill of sale is null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever as far as regards (amongst ether things) a seizure under any process of a court of law. Judgment must be against claimants, and in favor of execution creditors. After argument by counsel, it was agreed that if the appeal were upheld, costs should be Lo 13s.