Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

R.M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before Jns. Booth, Ebo., 8.M.) TUESDAY. Croft v. Currie. This case which has occupied the attention of the Court for some time past, presents some peculiar features. b| June, 1883, J. Bidgood gave a Bill'lwr Sale over certain effects, amongst whiclU * were three horses without brands, to D. Hepburn. In July, 1884, the Bill was realised upon, and the whole of the property sold by public auction. In the mean time, on January io, 1884, and prior to the last mentioned sale, Bidgood executed another Bill of Sale to

Mr. Croft for /40, on the security of three horses and ether effects, the latter having been destroyed at the Ormond fire. The Bailiff went to seize the three horses in satisfaction of the debt, when Bidgood asserted that two of them were dead, end offered to give up the third (a grey one). From certain information received it was surmised that the two horses were in the possession of Air Currie, and the bailiff accordingly demanded them, but was refused on the grounds that the two horses were the ones named in the previous bill of sale to Hepburn, and which had been sold at the auction sale in Julv, 1084. Henc_ the above action in the R.M. Court. The points relied on by the defence were, in addition to the ones above mentioned, that the Bill executed to Mr Croft was void on account of not being properly stamped and registered ; and yet it was executed by the defending council himself when in the office of Air Croft’s solicitors, and witnessed and attested by the same hand. His Worship now gave judgment for the plaintiff for the white horse, but declined to make an order as to the other one. The white horse to be delivered up on or before that day week or the defendant to pay /To and £~ 13s costs. Aft'RCHrt v. Carsox. ■ks./To on a dishonoredpromisMr Cresswell for the plaintiff, and Air Turton for the defence. Judgment for the amonnt, and costs /a is. Trimmer t. Hodge. * Claim Z 25 on a promissory note. Air Cressweil for the plaintiff, "judgment for the amount and costs.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBI18850730.2.19

Bibliographic details

Poverty Bay Independent, Volume i, Issue 29, 30 July 1885, Page 2

Word Count
362

R.M. COURT, GISBORNE. Poverty Bay Independent, Volume i, Issue 29, 30 July 1885, Page 2

R.M. COURT, GISBORNE. Poverty Bay Independent, Volume i, Issue 29, 30 July 1885, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert