Untitled

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume 24, Issue 1259, 13 January 1894, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT—NASEBY. Wednesday, Jajtuaby 10. (Befohe S. Mead Dalgliesil, Esq., K.M ) A couple of unimportant civil cases were first dealt with. • Kirkpatrick y. T. Paterson.—ln this case an interpleader summons was put in by P. Law.

.Mr Inder.for plaintiff, and Mr M'Garthy tor Mr Law.

Mr .McCarthy; said the, facts were shortly: Mr Kirkpatrick having obtained judgment in this court,, issued, a warrant, and seized stock—a Ally—in possession of Mr A. Paterson, of Gimmer'burn. rMriLaw claimed this filly under a bill she being the increase of a mare mentioned in the said bill. -The filly had been sold fpr £9, which amount was now lying in court/ Mr Law claimed he was entitled to ah orderfor the money to be paid to him. j.■ .., .P. Law gave evidence to the effect that T. Paterson had given him a bill of sale oversection 7, block 111, Gimnierburn, with certain property thereon, including several horses, the filly in question being the foal of one of them. Paterson gave'him possession in July, 1891, and told him everything on the ground' belonged to him. He took all the horses away at the time except the foal, and about two months after taking: poßsessionhe missed t. Some time after he saw it in A Paterson s paddock. He spoke to Paterson about it about IS months ago, bat 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 the; mare and impound "the money. ..The-reason; heallowed Mr A. Paterson to keep.thefilly, so long was because it was getting: crieap, grass. He had been sued in the Supreme Court for illegally 'taking possession of the property in question, aud it was decided he was only the mortgagee of the property. Mr Connolly came down under a warrant of the Supreme Court. He had taken possession two years ago ago, and under instructions from his Dunedin solicitors Mr Connolly took possession again. He took possession a second time because Mr Peterson 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 Mi- M'Carthy: Ho withdrew his claim, and merely agreed to impound the money to keep down expenses. Paterson never gave him any money to redeem the property. P. A. Connolly, bailiff, produced a writ of snle under which he seized certain property in the case of Paterson v. . \w, for £l4 9s 6.1. He seized section 7, blocs 111, Gimmcrburn, and certain stock. The history of the £9 in question was that when he was going to •ell the property Mr Law protested, but he showed him the" necessity of-disposing of it, as otherwise the expenses would amount up, so it was "arranged to "sell the-mare and abide by an interpleader suit. .'"""" To Mr Inder: As deputy-sheriff ho had not seized the £9 in the suit Paterson v. Law. ■ - I Counsel on both sides then addressed the court =U considerable length. Mr Inder contending that the bill of 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'Carth'y said the filly was the property of Law tinder the bill of sale. The fact of her not bring - branded was owing to Pnterson'j» negligence and Law shoula not suffer for that, neither did the fact of the

I filly getting into A. Paterson's lajid deprive Law of 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 coinplicated, and he would adj nirn his decisiou till.he looked into the various documents put in. ,- Millar v. Pastoral Coy.—His Worship gave judgment in this case at a previous sitting of the court, : but Mr M'Car thy having raised a~.'point.with regard to costs for the defendants in respect of the items in which they had succeeded. His Worship adjourned the question. He now. said he did not see his way to grant the defendants costs. Although it was the rule of the Supreme Court, it was not the rule of. R.M. Courts. Judgment would be for plain- , tiff for £3 Is 8d and costs.