RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume X, Issue 2025, 14 September 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tins Day. [Before James Booth, Ea<\., R.M.] Eliza Wilmore v. Alfred J. Coovkr — Claim LlOO for detention of property. — Mr Brassey for plaintiff, and Mr Kenny for defendant. — His worship delivered his judgment in the above case : It had been argued in defence that the amount could not be claimed, as the bill was a fraudulent one, and that the trust was for the benefit of Bromley. It had been tried to prove that the plaintiff was Mrs Bromley, by the production of the Registrar of births, deaths, and marriages, with whom Bromley had registered a child, and had set down Eliza wilmore as Bromley. It had oomu within his knowledge judicially that (plaintiff was not Bromley's wife, therefore, he would give judgment for the plaintiff for LB7, and costs ho. — Mr Kenny gave notice of appeal. Mrs W. Clark k v. U.S.S. Company. — Claim LlOO, for personal injuries sustained from negligence of the Company. — Adjourned for the taking of evidence until Tuesday. — Mr Turron for plaintiff, and Mr DeLautour for defendant. Warren v. Breinuan. — Claim L 2 4s. — No appearance of defendant. — Judgment for plaintiff wiih costs 13s. Same v. Hardy.— Claim Lb" for rates. — Judgment admitted. Stevenson v. Pran«ley. — This was an action for recovery of tenement, and L 3 for rent. — Judgment was given for the amount claimed, and an order was made that defendant give up the house by ten o'clock to-morrow morning. Greenwood v. Kenny, Mullooly, and Gruner.— Claim L 39 13s 10d. — Ylr Rees appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Finn for Mr Mullooly and Mr Gruner. — Mr Kenny said as ho was only a nominal plaintiff he would not defend. — The facts of the case are as follows : Mr Mullooly sued and obtained a judgment against one Apiata te Hume for L5O. On such judgment Mullooly petitioned to make Te Hame a bankrupt. Mr Rees appeared for the native, and upset the petition brought against him by Mullooly. The judgment was appealed against, but was again given against Mullooly with costs L 39 13s lOd. Mr Kenny, who appeared for Mullooly, paid the above sum to Mr Greenwood, a* Registrar of the District Court, and then immediately issued a warrant iuthcK.M. Court against Te Hame, and the sum paid to Mr Greenwood was seized on account of the debt owing by Te Hame to Mullooly, and afterwards paid to Mullooly by Mr Greenwood in satisfaction of his debt against Te Hame. Mr Greenwood now sued for the sum seized from him, believing the seizure to be illegal, and he himself would become responsiblo for such sum soized.— Mr Finn pleaded that one month's notice had not been given to Mr Gruner as required by the Act. — Objection overruled. — As to Mr Mullooly, he pleided three grounds of defence.— G. L. Greenwood deposed on or about October, Mr. Mullooly and Mr. Kenny came to his office to pay in the costs. Tae cheque was written onij. and placed upon his table, and he proooe'ded to write out a reo-.-ipt for' the amount, and whilo doing so Mr. Gruner entered the room. Tho receipt was handed to Mr. Kenny, who thon told Mr. Gruner to seize thf money on account of the dUtross warrant, which Mr. Gruner did. lie was not satisfied with the legality bt tho Bale, and demanded "the oheque back again. He did not resist the seizure as he miijht have done. A receipt was given for the vnoney. He had never received that money back again, although he had demanded it. To Mr. Finn : He had no conversation, wifeh Mr. Mullooly about the matter. He tlinuglit Mr. Kenny laid tho cheque 011 t i lp table. He never took it into hia hands. ' It was against his will the cheque was « taken. He had made no formal protest intil the money was tak W up. He was i aware that the nyuwy was goinc' to be seized JJe did not think the seizure was a legal one. He passively allowed, the money to be taken. The bailiff had a warrant against Apiata t ft Hame for £68. the bad.ff injy r ... returned, that cheqaxs. 1 Iheamountse^d, wus afterwards payed { to Mullooly for which he produced a , receipt.— a o Mr. R ee3 : The receipt ' showed that h« had received that sum, j which ho had not accounted for. There is ( nothing to show that tho amount had been f paid in the books. He had no doubt that ( lie could be made liable for the amount,

He gave the receipt before Kenny gave the cheque. — This ended the plaintiffs case.— Mr. Finn said he thought sufficient evidence had been given so tiiat Gruner's name should be struck out. — His Worship said he could not strike out Mr. Gruner'B name, as he held Mr. Gruner had seized illegally.— Mr. Finn then urged that there waa not one atom of evidence to show that Mr. Kenny or Mr. Gruner were not acting as agents. — His Worship said he thought they were acting as Mullo ily's agents.— Elliot Gruner, for the defence, deposed : He was Bailiff of the R.M. Court holden at Gisborne. About the 31st of October last he held the warrant produced. He was sent for and was told there was a cheque to be seized. He went to the office and saw Mr. Kenny, who had the chequi.in his hand. Mr. Kenuy told him he would hold him responsible if he did not seize it. Mr. Greenwood never held the cheque. He could not say whether Mr. Greenwood gave a receipt for the cheque. Before he was sent for he never had the warrant, but on entering the room it was given him by the plaintiff, and he immediately seized the cheque. Mr. Greenwood never objected to his taking the cheque. He understood the cheque belonged to Apiata te Haine. — H. J. Browne deposed : He was employed in the R.M. Court at the time the transactions took place. He remembered Mr. Kenny and Mr. Mullooly going to the R.M. office and stating that they were going to pay in Apiata te flame's costs, and at the same time applied for a warrant co seize the money paid on behalf of those costs. Mr. Gruner was absent aud was scut for. When he entered the off.cc he waa told to seize the cheque which he did. He never remembered any fo ■- mal demand bein^ made by Mr Greenwood. The cheque was immediately seized when laid down. — This ended the defendants' case. — His Worship after hearing argument on both sides, gave judgment for the plaintiff. —Mr. Finn gave notice of appeal.