Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume XI, Issue 877, 20 December 1876, Page 7

Resident Magistrate's Court.

Blenheim, Monday, December 18. [Before S. L. Muller Esq. R.M.j OAVENS V. ADAMS. In this case the Court delivered judgment reserved from last week as follows : — This is an action brought against defendant as Bailiff of the Resident Magistrate's Court, Havelock, for selling goods under an execution, and to which it is alleged he had no title. The plaintiff, it appears, bought a piano at ihe Bale, which was claimed by one James as his property. An action for its recovery was

brought against the present plaintiff m the Resident Magistrate's Court, Blenheim, when a judgment was given for defendant. This decision was afterwards, on ;vu apbcfiJ to tne Supreme Court, reversed, ami the present ■pkiutiff was ordered to return th> piano <>'.' pay its value. He now seeks to recover irou\ the present defendant the money paid to him for the piano at the sale. Allusions have been made to the action o( an interpleader summons, but it appears .to mo. that this is a proceeding which merely applies to the dispute between the claimant and the execution creditor, and has nothing whatever to do with purchasers at the sale, who must abide by the usual law regarding sales by Sheriffs. In Morley v. Attenborough, 18 L.S. Bxch. 148, it is laid down "that there is no implied warranty of title m a contract of sale of a personal chattel ; and m the absence of fraud a vendor is not liable for a defect of title, unless there is an express warranty, or an equivalent to it. by declarations or conduct." In Chapman v. Speller, 14 Q.B. 621, m a case where " the defendant having bought goods at a sale under an execution by the Sheriff for £18, the plaintiff, who had an equal knowledge with the defendant of the sale and title to the goods, and who was present at the sale,,bought from the defendant his purchase for £23. The goods were afterwards claimed and taken under a superior title, and the plaintiff was prevented from keeping possession ; held, that there was no implied warranty of title by the defendant, and that the plaintiff could not recover his money as paid on a consideration that had failed." So also m Addison on Contracts, p. 225, cd. 1862, m sales by Sheriffs or persons assuming to sell m some special character or capacity, and not as owner caveat'lcmptor. In the present case the defendant, as bailiff, sold the chattel. It is not hinted that he had any fraudulent intention, and although he had heard that another party claimed the chattel, yet that party had failed to take the steps necessary to stop the sale by interpleader proceedings.. The plaintiff was also present at the sale, and knew of the claim having been made, but so far from doubting the validity of the bailiff's title to sell, actually requested "the bailiff to go on with the sale ; the bailiff then sold the chattel, and after keeping the money a month divided it among the execution creditors. Under these circumstances I am of opinion that the chattel was sold by. the bailiff m good faith and without any intention of deceiving. The judgment will therefore be for the defendant with £5 8s costs. MARLBOROUGH TIMES CO. V. ¥. PARISH. This was a claim of £2 11s 6d, for. newspapers supplied. Mr Rogers appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Millington proved that the debt was owing and unpaid. Defendant did not appear, and Judgment was given for plaintiff, with 193 6d costs. SAME V. MCAULAY. Mr Millington proved a debt of £6 7s 9d, and obtained judgment wifcli 28s costs. FELXi BROS V. OSGOOP. A claim of £3 balance due on a running account. Mrßogerß appeared fur plaintiff. From what transpired it seemed that monies had been paid by defendant from time to time, and he was under the impression that he had not received credit for the whole. The bench examined all his receipts and found each payment had been credited by the plaintiff and gave judgment accordingly, with 19s costs. SAME V. IITMMAS. Mr Bushell proved the debt L 5 3s 6d, but' stated that L 4 had been paid by plaintiff that morning, leaving only ja balance of 23s 6d. Judgment was given for that sum with 12s costs. ' SAME V. A. HENDERSON. Defendant admitted the debt, L 2 8s 6d, and judgment passed accordingly, with 9s costs. MARYBOROUGH TIMES CO. V. LAWSON. A claim for 2s 6d for papers supplied. Defendant's wife appeared for him, and said he never had anything to do with the paper, except once putting m an advertisement for which she held the receipt. Mr Millington said he only knew that the paper was ordered to be sent to Lawson's, and delivered by the boy. The order was given through Mr Pirani, and he found the account m the books. Mrs Lawson said that neither nor husband had had any papers. The boy who delivered the papers was then senb for. Edward Reeves deposed to the delivery of the papers at defendant's house, he took them about six or eight copies, leaving them at the gate, but not giving them to anyone personally. Defendant then lived opposite Mr Sinclair's residence near the Manse. Mrs Lawson being sworn deposed that neither herself or husband ever had any papers, never had any m her house, never picked np any papers outside m the meadow; the house stood back from the road some distance. Her husband never read any papers, had he had any he would have read them to her. The bench said the case failed for want of evidence, by the boy's showing he threw the' paper m at the gate, throwing a paper into a garden was no evidence of delivery. He knew it was the common way of delivering them but it was not a. proof of actual delivery. They should prove that it was 1 delivered at theliouse. Judgment would therefore be for defendant. • •