HARD SWEARING.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 771, 10 December 1886, Page 10

HARD SWEARING.

(UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION.) Christchurch, December 8. Some peculiar developments took place this -morning in the Resident Magistrate’s Court upon the hearing of an interpleader summons. The following are the facts :

E. M. Marks a few days since summoned two persons named McCallum and Arbnckle. He obtained judgment against the former, and a few days after against the latter. The bailiff of the Resident Magistrate’s Court, with a warrant of distress, entered McCallum’s shop, and proceeded to take a list of the things, but just at this time Arbuckle, against whom judgment had not then been, given, came forward and said the things were his. He showed papers in evidence of his title, and the bailiff withdrew* A day or two afterward Marks obtained judgment against Arbuckle. The bailiff a. second time levied upon the goods, when Mrs Pollock (Arbuckle’s mother) immediately claimed them. The bailiffs refused to withdraw, and Mrs Pollock brought the present interpleader to establish her ownership. Mr Beattie appeared for the claimant, and Mr Russell for the execution creditor* Mrs Pollock in her evidence said that she claimed the goods under a bill of sale produced on October 31, 1882. She gave a bill of sale over these and other goods to her son in consideration of £209. That bill of sale was satisfied the other day. Mr Russell, in cross - examination, elicited from witness that she was in pecuniary diffioulties when she gave the bill of sale* that she did not receive one penny from her son ; that the object of the document was to protect the goods from the creditors ; that three weeks after giving it she filed her declaration of insolvency ; that Mr Gilchrist was appointed her trustee, and that he never took any steps to realise the property. He knew all about the preparation of the bill of sale. Arbuckle swore that the goods were his mother’s, and that the bill of sale was given to secure £2OO. He stated that the. money was paid to his mother in bank notes. He contradicted all that his mother said about the consideration of the bill of sale. As he was out of Court when she gave-her evidence he was unaware of what she said. Arbuckle swore that the £2OO had been now repaid by his mother, he having received four years’ board aud lodging from her since the date of the bill of sale, and £l(> in cash. He admitted that he attended a meeting of his mother’s creditors four weeks after the date of the bill of sale, and proved for £BO, but could not give a reason why the liability to him sho dd have been reduced within one month by £l2O. Judgment was given in favor of the execution creditor Marks.