Untitled

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume 24, Issue 1259, 11 January 1894, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT—NASEBY. Wednesday.Jaxuaky 10. , (Befose S. Mead Dalguesh, Esq:, K.M) A couple of unimportant civil cases were first dealt with. Kirkpatrick v. -T. Paterson.—ln this case an interpleader • summons was put in by P. Law. ; Mr Incler for plaintiff,..and Mr M'Garthy for Mr Law.. ,\,Mr M'Garthy said the facts were shortly : Mr Kirkpatrick having obtained judgment in this cpqrt, issued a'warrant, aud seized stockT-ai filly.-^-in.possession of .Mr A. Pnterson, of Gimuierburn. Mr Law claimed this filly under, a, bill of. sale, she being the increase' of a mare mentioned* in the said bill. , The filly had been sold for'£9, which : amourtt.waßnb.w lying in court, and Mr Law claimed he, was entitled to an orders for the ■ paid; to .him, _ ,P. Ltiifr .gave jevidence to the. effect that ! Ti'PateiSoil had given him sale.over sectioriv7, ;i)locli 111, with,certain property . thereonj f including . several horses, tlje filly ~in question being the foal of one of, them..j PaterMog gave.him possessionem July, iB91 t )and.told him everything on the ground belonged to him.; He took all the horses atyay at the time pxcept the foal, and about two months &fyer taking possession he missed t. Some time after he saw it in A Paterson s paddock. . IJe spoke to.Patersbn about it about- 18 months ago,® but he dared him to go and touch the animal. Witness told him to sell it and he would let him see what he would do. He did not know Mr Kirkpatrick had seized the filly till the day before the sale. He went and saw him and told him that he claimed the filly. Kirkpatrick replied if he paid A. Paterson for the service of the mare, and the keep of the filly, and what T. Paterson owed him he could take her.

Cross-examined by," Mr Inder : As Mr Connolly was present they agreed to sell the mare and impound the mouey. The reason he allowed. Mr,A. Pa^ergon.ioJjeep.the filly so long was was getting'cheap grass. He had been, sued -in. the Supreme Court for illegally taking possession of the property in question, ana it was decided he was only the mortgagee of the property. Mr Connolly came down under a warrant of the Supreme Court. He had takeu possession two years ago ago, and under instructions from his Duiiedin solicitors Mr Conuolly took possession again. He took possession a second time because Mr Paterson tried to reclaim it. The stock were not branded with the brands mentioned in the mortgage, because Paterson had promised to brand them, but he never did so. He was going to sell the property under a writ of sale.

To Mr M'Carthy : He withdrew his claim, aiai merely agreed to impound the m >aey to keep down expenses. Paterson never gave him any money to redeem the property. P. A. Connolly, bailiff, produced a writ of sale under which he seized certain property, in tho ease of PaUrsoD v. Law, for £l4 9s '&•■{■_ He seiSed section 7, block 111, Gimmerbivrn, and certain stock. The history of the £9 in (ju,estion was that when lie was going to jjslVthtf'Tproporty Mr JUiw protested, but he hSlfthe necessity of difitastgg ,of_.it, as otherwise the expenses woula'atwimltap, so it was arranged to sell the ni&ri&j)i'd abide by an interpleader suit. .**•■».*?: [\ To Mr Inder: As depnty-Bheriff : be,.had not seized the £9 in the suit Paterson v. Law.

Counsel on both sides then addressed the court it considerable length. Mr Inder contending that the trill; 61 sale never applied to the filly, and that if it did Mr Law, by his line of'action, had waived any right he might have had to her, and that Mr/Law had failed to prove that he had any right to her. .Mr M'Carthy said the filly was the propertyof Law imdrtr tho bill of sale. The fact of her not bi ing branded was owing \o I'atcKou'." ncgligou.ee v and Law should not. suffer for thai, neither did the fact of the

filly getting into A. Patereon's land deprive Law pt his right to her. He then went into a long legal argument, winding up by saying that if any doubts existed Law was entitled to the benefit of them,- as Mr Kirkpatrick could have gone into the box and dispersed them, but he did not do so. «*

His Worship said the case was very complicated, and he uould adj urn his decision till he looked into the various documents put in. '

Millar v. Pastoral Coy. —His Worship gave judgment in this, case at a previous sitting 10F the court, |4t Mr M'Cartliy having raised a point with legard to costs for the defendants inrespect of the items in which they had succeeded. His Worship adjourned the question? _ He no w said he di<7 not see his way to grant the defendants cost* Although it was the rule of the Supreme Court, it was not the .rule of ■ls. M. Courts. Judgment would be for plaiiitiiffor £3 Is SdAnd costs.