AN UNUSUAL CASE.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 314, 30 June 1888, Page 3

AN UNUSUAL CASE.

Afc the R.M. Court yesterday morning, beforo J. Allen Esq., R.M., J. J. Old sued S. Tansley, bailiff, for LG Sh, amount of bailiff’s fees alleged to bo due. Mr Conolly appeared for defendant ; plaintiff conducted his own ease J. J. Old, tho plaintiff, said ho had been in possession for the term mentioned, and defendant had received the fees. ■Witness considered ho was justly entitled to tho claim. To tho Bench : Tanaley put mo in possession. I was in possession for the days I claim for, and have charged at the rato of 8a per day. I was in possession where the goods were, that is, in my own house. I would have accepted half the amount of tho claim, and allowed the thing to rest, but defendant would not agree to that. I have been bailiff for thirteen years, and liavo never heard of such a thing as withholding tho fees being done. To Mr Conolly : I remember you and Mr Tansloy standing at my gato. Mr Conolly : Was not the arrangement, in order to save your daughters annoyance, you should remain in possession, and defendant would retain the fees f Witness : Certainly it was not. Witness continued: It would undoubtedly have caused my daughters some annoyance if a stranger bad been in possession. Tansley made the arrangement with your consent. Nothing was said on the matter before you arrived. Tansley said “I will do it with Mr Conolly’s consent.” Nothing was said to you or anyono elso about fees. L3s 4d was paid by Mr J. T. Robinson, out of tho trust money, but it came from mo finally. Mr Robinson paid it, and tho Clerk of the Court can bear me out in tho statement. I afterwards paid it to Mr Robinson. I havo become bankrupt since then, but Mr Nosworthy has given mo authority to collect the amount. He said “ Whatever comes to you you can have for yourself.” I have no written authority, however. I was in possession before my bankruptcy. His Worship (to witness): You should havo Mr Nosworthy here as a witness, as you cannot suo unless he has given you authority to do so. I think we should give him the chance. The plaiutiff then wont over to Mr Nosworthy’s office, but returned shortly afterwards, saying that he could not be found. Mr Conolly : If tho Deputy Assigneo

gays that he gave plaintiff leavo to sue, I "-dll waive the question of the writing; ) but of omuso we don’t rely on tho bank- ' ruptcy. After consulting with his client, Mr CunoT .-aid ho would wai-c the point, as dtfei.uant would rather have the case settled on its merits. His Worship : How about tho creditors ?

Mr Conolly : He will have to responsible to his creditors for the monoy. If hi gcis it by false pretences, it has nothing to do with us. His Worship then adjourned tho hearing of the ease ti'l 12 o’clock, so as to give plaintiff an opportunity of finding the Deputy Assignee. When tho Court resumed, however, plaintiff said that Mr Nosworthy had gone ont of town. His Worship said he would have to grant a further adjournment. The objection had been raised, and the point would consequently have to he argued. If the •'Liutisf nan nor the Assignee’s authority,

then he had no power to bring the case into Court. He would further adjourn tho ease till 3 o’clock.

At the hour stated Mr Nosworthy was present, and stated that he had anticipated that the present aetion was brought by plaintiff as bailiff, but he understood there was no claim whatever, and it was not worth going into Court about. Witness told plaintiff that he might recover the amount if he could, but still he did not anticipate that there was a claim. Witness would allow plaintiff to sue. To Mr Conolly : I do not think he will bo allowed to keep the money if he gets it. I did not say anything about keeping it. His Worship said from the aspects the case had assumed he could not go on with it. Mr Conolly : I would like you to give judgment on the merits of the case. My client would like to have it settled, as the fact of his not paying the money casts a slur on him. I would like to have my client cleared.

His Worship said he would go on with the case, but he could not judge it on its merits.

Samuel Tansley, bailiff, said he took possession of plaintiff’s furniture on 3rd May, under a distress warrant. When he first went to ihe house it was about 9.30 in the morning. Witness told plaintiff bis business. The latter replied, “ I hope nothing will be moved. There is a bill-of-salo in existence which I am going to contend, and which I am sure to win.” Wituess saw Mr Conolly coining down the road, arid said, “ Wait till Conolly comes.” Witness said he was not going to loose his fees. It was plaintiff’s wish that the furniture should stay where it was, as he did not want an exposure. Witness agreed to leave them there, on condition that plaintiff did not move them. Witness would not havo taken this step if Mr Conolly had not been prosent. Plaintiff thoroughly understood that lie was not to get any fees. Witness left the furniture in the house, after he had made an inventory of some of the things.

To Plaintiff: My words were, “ I will not give up my fees, as I could move the things and claim them.” Plaintiff : No you did not say anything of the sort.

Witness : I beg you pardon, I did. Plaintiff : No, you did not. His Worship: Havo you any more questions to ask this witness ? Plaintiff : It’s a thing I never did in all my existence. Witness: Mr Old said, “It will be all right.” Plaintiff: Had I done these things when I was a bailiff I would have been a rich man now.

Witness : That’s got nothing to do with the present case. Mr Tansley said he would like to call Mr Conolly as a witness. Mr Conolly replied that he did not care to give evidenco. He would sooner leavo the case in the hands of the Court.

His Worship said the debt was one that had been incurred before the bankruptcy, and hence plaintiff had no right to sue for it. The Deputy-Assignee should have done soon behalf of the creditors. Everything belonged to them. He would nonsuit tho plaintiff, without costs. Mr Cimolly said ho did not ask for any costs.

To Mr M'Nah: My husband did borrow a little money from Rush, hut it was only a few shillings. My husband is given to drink a little, but he drinks more in the summer than he does in the winter. (Laughter.) R. Kilpatrick, saddler and harness maker, gave evidence as to tho value of harness. He valued the harness at 7e 6d and tho chain at 2s 6d.

To Mr M'Nab : That is their value today. Four years would depreciate their value considerably. The harness has not been very well taken care of. I should say that the complete set would not be worth more than LI.

To Mr M'Nab: I had a slaughterhouse license. I paid LI 16s Gd for it to Messrs Sinclair and M'Callum.

Philip Rush, farmer, Grovetown, the defendant in the aetion, said that up to the 19th June ho never had any meat from plaintiff ns a butcher. Plaintiff ; It’s a lie. It’s a lie. Witness continued : I nover authorised him to supply any meat to my wife, but all that he did Bupply was covered by contra accoun'. As to the cows plaintiff milked, he had tho milk for bis own use. Plaintiff never cleaned the pig on the date mentioned, as he (witness) was then staying at Gosling’s. Plaintiff : You are a liar -a thundering liar. [This exclamation was made in a very excited manner.] Witness (to his Worship) : He calls me a thundering liar, your Worship. Have I no protection against him ? The Court crier here seized the plaintiff and unceremoniously bundled him out of Court.

Mr M'Nab: Can we go on with the case now that the plaintiff is out ? His Worship : Oh yes, as his solicitor is here. Plaintiff’s conduct in Court has been most disgraceful. Mr M'Callum said he offered no objection. Mr M'Nab : I will endeavor to keep my client in order.

Witness continued : The gates are on plaintiff’s property at tho present time. W. Gosling said that defendant stayed with him from 19th June to 23rd August, ISB4. He brought a small pig with him when he came, and the cows were also brought to witness’ place a few days afterwards—on the Sunday following the 19 th.

Plaintiff having been admitted into Court agaiD, the evidence of tho last witness was read over to him.

In reply to the Bench, plaintiff said he believed, although be would not like to swear to it, that defendant helped him to put the gates into the cart. As to the valuation of the gates, he had simply “cooked” it up. “The thing was infeasible.” Defendant was no friend of plaintiff’s—in fact he was a very bad one. Plaintiff said ho only wanted what was honestly due to him.

His Worship, in giving judgment in the case, said that there had been a good deal of hard swearing indulged in, and thus be would'havo to give judgment as best he could. He would g-ivo judgment for plaintiff for os 3d, but ho would not allow him any costs, on account of the disgraceful way some of the witnesses on his side had conducted themselves in Court. The language used was very discreditable, and, in fact, he was on tho point of ordering both the partien out of Court, and adjourning the oaso until such time as they could learn to conduct themselves properly. He would allow a professional fee of ono guinea, and Gs Cou.’-t costs.