MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3330, 4 December 1883, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. (Before J. Beswick Esq., R.M„ E. Elworthy, and T. W. Hall, Esq.’s) inteepleadee. J. W. White, plaintiff, H. Pitts and Mrs Pitts defendants, and Martha Truman, claimant. Amount in dispute, £llßs 2d. This was a claim by Martha Truman, for goods seized by plaintiff from defendant on a recent judgment of the Court, and which goods claimant alleged were hers. Defendants had owed plaintiff the amount of£l 18s 2d,and on the male defendant becoming bankrupt, plaintiff had proceeded against Mrs Pitts separate estate, obtained judgment, and levied a distress upon certain goods. These goods, the claimant, Martha Truman, sister to Mrs Pitts, now claimed as hers. Mr Knnbley, for the claimant, sub" mitted that the Court had no power at the outset to issue execution against the separate goods of a married woman. He cited a number of cases in support of his argument, and submitted that the recent judgment of the Court in the case, had subjected Mrs Pitts to a great deal of trouble, as other creditors had now taken proceedings against her, being encouraged by the decision of this Court, He called, Frederick Cullman, landlord of the premises formerly eccupied by Mrs Pitts, who said they were now occupied by Miss Martha Truman, who was now his tenant.

To Mr White —I do not know who resides on the premises, nor do I know exactly who carries on the business. Miss Truman leases the shop,butldonot know whether she lives there or not. Both she and Mrs Pitts pay the rent, sometimes the one, sometimes the other.

Martha Truman, fancy goods storekeeper, said she did not reside on the shop premises, neither did Mrs Pitts. When the bailiffs were put in by plaintiff witness told plaintiff he could not distrain on certain goods, she having bought them at the auction sale by Mr Turnbull on October 29, before the execution. Everything on the premises had been sold. The execution was levied on November 27.

To Mr White—l carry on the business myself. Mrs Fitts conducts a registry office there. The bouse, shop and goods aro mine. I did not say I was a shop girl, I said I was a shopkeeper. I have no arrangements with my sister, Mrs Pitts. Her husband does nothing just now. Their sole support is derived from the profit of the registry office. At the sale by auction I bought some of the things, and Mrs Pitts bought some for me, with money supplied by me, Some other people offered to buy for me. The money I used was my own. There were plenty of other bidders.

Mrs Pitts (the female defendant) corroborated the evidence of the previous witness as to the ownership of the stock and proprietorship of the business. Mr Knubley submitted that sufficient proof had been adduced to justify his client’s case.

Mr White said the evidence, and the manner in which it was given, were not such as to clear away all doubts of the bom fides of the affair, and he urged that this should bo considered by the Court.

His Worship said ho could not very well overlook the quantity of evidence that had been produced by claimant, and judgment would be given for the claimant, to whom the goods must be restored.