Resident Magistrate's Count.

Marlborough Express, Volume XI, Issue 875, 13 December 1876, Page 7

Resident Magistrate's Count.

Blenheim, Monday, December 11

[Before S. L. Muller Esq. R.M.j

lIOUStIN ■». CAMPBELL. This was an action brought by plaintiff to recover -the sum of L2O on an acceptance, and L3 6s Bel interest. Plaintiff stated that the bill was overdue and had never been paid,. although it had been presented at the Bank. Plaintiff was represented by Mr Rogers ; the defendant did not appear. Judgment was given for plaintiff for L23 6s Bd, and costs L 4 11s. OWEN. V. ADAMS. In this case plaintiff sought to recover L6l 7s 4d. Mr Eoger3 appeared for plaintiff, and Mr, Conolly for defendant. The case has frequently been before the public. It appears 'that a man named MeKune living at Havelock, some months ago had to hand over- his goods for the benefit of his creditors. ;Shortly before he/did so he bought a piano from Air James of Nelson, paying a certain sum per month until the whole should be paid off. Before the whole amount was paid, however, two of his creditors, named M'Millari and Cohen got judgment against him, and the bailiff of the local R.M. Court seized his goods, including a piano. The piano was to be sold by auction on a certain date, .but before that date had arrived Mr James telegraphed to the baliff (Sergeant Adams) to the effect that if he sold the piano he did so at his own risk. The piano was duly sold to Mr Owe a. the 1 plaintiff, for. £32. Then Mr James brought an action m the KM. Court against Mr Owen for the value of the piano which, it appears, he (Mr James) had not received. Mr Owen won the case, which was then taken to the Supreme Court by Mr Janaes, and the decision of the Resident Magistrate m Mr Owen's favor was reversed. By this time the costs had amounted to a considerable sum, which Mr Owen had had to pay, as well as the price of the piano over again, and it was with the view of recovering I the amount, of those costs and one of the prices of the piano that the present action was brought by Mr Owen against the bailiff.

Mr Conolly, on behalf of the defendant, contended that, the bailiff had given no warranty that the title to the goods should'be unimpeachable, and he submitted, moreover, that the defendant could not accept a telegraphic notice that he was not to sell the piano as a proper protest against the sale from Mr James.

Mv Rogers, on the other . hand, submitted that the evidence showed that the defendant knew perfectly well that the piano was really the property of Mr James, and that therefore he should have recognised Mr James' protest. Ho also showed that the bailiff had been guilty of neglect m not having paid the money realised by *the sale of the piano into Court to abide its decision. Had the bailiff done so the plaintiff could have taken it out. His Worship reserved judgment until Monday next. HtJSTWICK V. SCOTT. Plaintiff sought to recover the sum of L 2 13s from defendant for goods supplied and money lent. He had asked defendant for the money several times but had never got it. Judgment was given for the amount claimed and 4s costs. XEWIS V. MAXTEAD. In this case plaintiff sought to recover Ll2 193 from defendant. It appeared that plaintiff had obtained judgment some weeks a^o, but the documents were destroyed by the fire and he now asked that they should be revived. Judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs 345.