SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume III, Issue 634, 23 November 1865, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN BANCO (Before hia Honor Sir G. Arucy, 0.J.) DON'AID MCrHKE T. WILI.IASI HILLS. Sir. Wynn for plaintiff; Mr. Gillies for defendant. , The declaration in this case stated that the asfendant on or about the sixth diy of September, IS<33, seized and too!: plaintiff's goods, consisting of brandy, bacon, beef, groceries, and other merchandise and carried them away, whereby tlio pU'tntin was deprived of the use of the said goo-Is, and incurred expense respecting the same, and was also pro" vented from selling the goods as ho otlierw.se * t "f . have done ; a'so that tho defendant converted to in own use or wrongfully deprived the plaintiff of the use and pos-ojsion of the aforesaid goods, wherefore ih i plaintiff claimed to recover two hundred and fifty pounds. - .-a '.I he det-;nda>it pleaded that tlie goods mentioned in tho ■ declaration were without the permission o the defendant shippo I on board a vessel called the Wandorc-r, to be carried coastwise, and were not shipped iu the presence or with the authority of 8 proper oflicer of Customs, and thereby became wf* feited to lier Majesty tho Qieen and were seized v the defendant as so forfeited. Mr. Wynn argued that the second plea of thedefendant was bid iu substance, that the permission of the defendant was not necessary to ship the saia good;, and that it was not noeeesary that the »«• goods should be shipped in the presence or with tne authority of the propjr officer of Customs. Air. Gillies argued that the second plea by the defendant was gojd lie relied entirely on the l-< clause of the Customs Regulation Act, ISoS, runs as follows If any goods shall, without tM "permission of tho Coll.dor, be unshipped ro " any ship arriving coastwise, or be shipped or wa " borne to bo shipped, to be carried coastwise on sun- " djys or holidavs or any Saturday after the U " o'clock at noon, or except in tho prcsoncoorwi " authority of tho proper officer of tho Customs, or " cept at such times and places as shall be u . P "pointed or approved for that purpose, :ie " shall be forfeited, and the master of tho ship sM" " forfeit £50." It wou d therefore appeir that n only must goods be shipped or unshippo a c fi.-nos and plaeej, but also in the presence nn the authority of the proper officer although™ shipper should comply with ono, but fail to o ; the other of these requirements, the goods ui forfeited. , , In reply, Sir. Wrw urged that one oftaeprt visions of the clause had been comn.ied wi therefore the plaintiff was entitled to judgmeni» His Honor overruled the demurrer, and p judgment for the plaiutiff. i There was another ease of tho same chariot , Sir. Wynn accepted a like judgment as in tho LAUXCELOE BEALT* V. JAIISS 1.. LTELL. The facts of this case were as follows : , , 3rd day of March, 1853, plaintiff deposited 1000 d lai'3 ill tho hands of defendant, who was a. b» Detroit, North America, and who held that sum-, joct to tho plaintiff's order, and was to pay IMP tiff interost at the ralo of 7 per cent per ai V long as ho held tho money. Plaintiff had r q made application for the amount and m cr »> tho defendant had not y>;t paid h"' l - . September, 1853, plaintiff also left 200 dol a t0 fendimt's hands, which ho had not been r ° Tl-e'dofendant by his attorney, Mr. Wyrin, Jtnied all the material parts of the allegation, an alleged cause of action did not accrue years before this suit. Irvine Plaintiff argued that the cause of actio .y occurred beyond sea, tho Statute of Limits* * not apply. The Mercantile Law Ameudaieut was a camploto answer to the whole plea. aro e iu 1853, and therefore as far as time' *"L r ed cerned thore was no question at all. Hetti to 21 James, Ic. 10 s., in support of his Mg ~ but he ontirely relied iu this caso on the Law Amendment Act.

rued that although tho cause of l ifr. G'" ,cs . f.-.wufn country, yet tho parties I -«tisC' rll,,d "L m the timo of their return to h.l iii "I 13 M " Williams and Jones, in East." C- W' :in "°,Vt cxti"2"' 8 ' iecl ' t)l0 remed y 'wns * a3 ' jj e jnbniitted.that in the present susi 1 ™' 16 | nw . Amendment Act did not " l 0 J l # ii i for this reason and no other, tho ' n ' 'ij uo t bo presumed to have n :: the st ; < tute w u f,TTi , fti re cl'^ct. wis r^"n