GREENWOOD v. KENNY, GRUNER, AND MULLOOLY.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume X, Issue 2026, 15 September 1883, Page 2

GREENWOOD v. KENNY, GRUNER, AND MULLOOLY.

After the decision was given in the above case yesterday, Mr. Kenny rose and said that lie had expected to be called by one side or the other, but, as he had not given evidence, he would like to make a personal explanation, now that such explanation could not bias the judgment of the Court. As his friend Mr. Rees said, there had been a good deal of warmth and irritation on both sides on the day of this occurrence. Mullooly had a claim against Apiata te flame, for which he had got judgment, for some £90, and Apiata te Hame had this contra claim for £34 for the bankruptcy costs. Mullooly had been refused an order on a judgment" summons in the morning, and he was threatened with an execution for the ,£3-4 costs. During the lunch hour, he (Mr. Kenny) and Messrs. Finn and Mullooly conferred together, and it was decided to pay in the cheque and get it seized by the bailiff. He saw Mr. Greenwood, and arranged the matter with him, promising to liold Mr. Greenwood harmless. The distress warrant was taken out, and the cheque paid in, and seized by the !>ailifT. There was no time to look into the law of the matter, and the case seemed analogous to the numerous instances when a bailiff has been stationed in waiting and money seized as it was in the act of being paid across a bank counter, or when money was being paid to a contractor. Upon reflection, however, and after consulting authorities to which there was no time to refer on the afternoon in question, he saw tho analouy was apparent and not real ; that the money was Greenwood's, and not Apiata's, and when he found that a hostile correspondence was going on between Mr. Roes and Mr. Greenwood, he advised Mullooly to pvy the money. Mr. Mullooly came to him the other day, after the issue of the summons, and he then told Mullooly that he had better pay the money, as the action could not be defended, and stated that he reserved to himself entire liberty of action as to whether he would defend ihe action or not, as he would not throw unnecassary difficulties in Mr. Greenwood's way, or do anything to compromise him. For his part, he regretted the annoyance to which Mr. Greenwood had been subjected.