LIABILITY OF SHERIFFS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 7947, 2 December 1886, Page 2

LIABILITY OF SHERIFFS.

(united press association.) • Napier, December I. An important case relating to the liability of sheriffs was heard to-day. Mr Thomas, sheep-dip proprietor, in 1884 had as agent one Shepherd, who was sued for a balance of account, judgment being given for £295. All but £36 was paid prior to November, 1885, when Thomas caused a writ to be issued. The sheriff here found the goods and chattels of Shepherd seaured under a bill of sale for a loan of £2OO, part of which had been repaid at the time of the issue of the writ. The sheriff did not execute the writ on the ground that the goods were not seizable, being covered by the bill of sale and secondly because, if seized and sold, be considered they would not have more than satisfied the holder of the bill of sale. Plaintiffs allege that it was'the duty of the sheriff to execute the warrant, because part of the debt having been repaid Shepherd had a saleable interest, which would have been realised. The defence relied chiefly upon the inviolability of goods proteoted by bills of sale, and also pleaded that the sheriff was justified in considering the value of the furniture insufficient to do more than satisfy the balance due under the bill. The Chief Justice, who tried the case without a jury, said the law in New’Zealand,'interpreted according to rules of procedure, was different from that in.Englaud, where an interest in ohatsels under a bill of sale could not be seized except in case of partnership. In New Zealand it was the duty of the sheriff to seize such interest on behalf of the judgment creditor, and neglect to do so was at bis peril. His Honor, however, gave judgment for defendant, on the ground that he was fully satisfied that no loss accrued to plaintiffs through non-execution of the writ, as evidence showed that Shepherd was hopelessly bankrupt with no means, and if the goods held under the bill had been sold, the j proceeds would have not done more than satisfy the holder of the bill. Costa were granted on the lowest scale. It was stated that this was the first time the question had been raised in New Zealand. i