REMOVAL OF FURNITURE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16231, 17 May 1916, Page 5

REMOVAL OF FURNITURE

ALLEGED ILLEGAL SEIZURE.

THE RIGHT OF ENTRY.

CARTING FIRM'S POSITION.

The hearing of the case concerning an alleged illegal trespass and seizure of furniture was resumed before His Honor Mr. Justice Cooper at the civil sessions of the Supreme Court yesterday. The plaintiff, Wenzl Scholium (Mr. Schnauer), land agent, claimed from the defendants B. G. Barripp (Mr. A. M. Gould), merchant, and the New Zealand Express Company, Ltd. (Mr. H. H. Ostler), the return of a quantity of furniture said to have been illegally seized and removed, or in the alternative a sum of £600 also, a sum of £25 damages tor alleged illegal trespass on the premises in Carlton Gore Road; £50 damages for alleged illegal in-, terference with, and the removal of, the furniture, and £25 damages for alleged wrongful detention of the furniture. It was alleged at the previous day's hearing that on March 25, 1916, the defendant, Barripp, illegally trespassed on and forcibly entered upon the plaintiff's property in Carlton Gore Road, r.nd illegally seized and removed out of the premises a quantity of furniture; further, that on March- 27, 1916, in spite of the warning given by the plaintiff's solicitor, the defendant again entered the premises and removed a further quantity of furniture. Mr. Schnauer asked leave to amend the statement of claim by inserting a claim of £100 damages for alleged deterioration in the value of the furniture. After legal argument it was agreed that the point should be raised again after the question of lawthe right to BaWipp's ! immediate entry—had been decided. Mr. Gould submitted that the plaintiff should be nonsuited on all causes of action. Question of Transfer Title. His Honor said he would require to be satisfied that at the time' the furniture was removed the defendant had a registered transfer title. Air. Gould said that Barripp had a transfer at the time, but the title was not registered until March 28. He submitted that on March 25, Barripp and Corringham both had the immediate right of entry, even by force, on the Carlton Gore Road property, Corringham being included because he was then in the position of the vendor of the property. His Honor said there was no evidence to show that Corringham authorised Barripp to enter the premises., Mr. Gould said that although the transfer of. the property from Corringham to Barripp had not been registered until, after the furniture had been removed, Barripp had the right of entry by the fact that he was the transferee of the property. His Honor : You ape asking me to decide that it was right and proper for the defendant Barripp to forcibly enter the premises on Corringham's title. The facts I have before me so far are that the plaintiff transferred his wife's property to Messrs. Matthew Bros., and that he was to be given on« month's notice from them to vacate the place. Barripp had no right to the possession of -the property, nor entry to it, until he secured a properly registered transfer. Statement by Defendant. The defendant, Barney Goldroad Barripp, said he had received a transfer of the property on March 7, when the rates and other outgoings were apportioned and adjusted. Corrmgham had no right whatever to possession after March 7. Later on in the month, witness gave a. two years' lease of the property to one Dunn, who was to enter into occupation on March 27. Scholium had told witness that he could move out almost at any time. Scholium was told that if the furniture was not removed by a certain, date he would send the New Zealand Ex press Company's vans to take it away and • store it at his, Scholium's risk and expense. The defendant was cross-examined at l length. Arthur Corringham, the owner of the property before it was acquired bv Barripp,—was called. Express Company's Attitude. Charles Henry Fleming, Auckland man- ; ager of the New Zealand Express Company, said that when the defendant Barripp called to see him in regard to moving some furniture it transpired that there was some trouble in connection with the matter. Witness did not gather the exact extent of the trouble, but it appeared that the furniture was to be seized. He told Barripp that he did not wish to be connected with any bother, and advised him to consult his solicitor. Later in the morning, Barripp returned to witness's office and said that everything was quite regular and in order, and "he could proceed to remove the furniture. When the second lot of furniture was removed two days later it was done without witness's knowledge. Whilst the goods and chattels ' were in witness's keeping they were insured at Barripp s request and in his name. I In answer to Mr. Gould, witness said j the goods were held by him in Barripp's name. If he had understood that he was holding the furniture at Scholium's risk and expense he would probably have declined to accept the goods. Frederick Henry Mueller, solicitor who had had transactions with some of the owners of the property, also gave evidence. the case was further adjourned until this morning m order that the defendant .might call one of the Matthew Brothers to give evidence.