CIVIL BUSINESS.

Southland Times, Issue 16059, 10 June 1902, Page 4

CIVIL BUSINESS.

(Before his Honour Mr Justice Denniston.)

His Honour took his seat at 10 a.m

ALLEGED IMPROPER SALE.

W. Snodgrass and Margaret T. Snodgrass v. Ellen Mqffett, a claim for £285 damages for lons through improper sale of furniture. Mr W. A. Stout appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr C. S. Longuet for the defendant. The hearing of this case was resumed* Mr Longuet, opening for the defence, said that the accommodation house was only of value as a tourist resort. The plaintiffs got into money difficulties and had trouble in financing. They ultimately came to caoie to Moffett. It was easy to put a value on property,; Jout in such a locality as that it hadno market value.

His Honour : It is no use talking as if it were a bona fide sale. So far as getting at th»-roal -value of the -furniture the sale might, as well have been in Mr Moffett's office!, You have got to show either that the sale was a proper way of disposing of the furniture in the interests of all parties, or that the plaintiffs acquiesced in the sale being held as it was on account of some consideration or promise. .Mr Longuet : The plaintiffs did acquiesce in the manner of the sale. His Honour : What about the protest Mr Longuet.: Previous to that they acquiesced in the safe. His Honour : Previous acquiescence would be destroyed by that protest. Mr Longuet : There was an inducement for that acquiescence. The plaintiffs were to get the lease and it was in the interests of all parties that Moffett who was the owner of the hotel, should become owner of the furniture. .The inducements held out to plaintiffs before the sale were actually, accepted afterwards. Jt. was not desirable, that the furniture should be cut up and 1 bought by outsiders, since new furniture would have had to be bought. •Evidence was given by T. D. A. Moffett, W. G. Moffett, H. Moir, W. Todd and Jas. Smith.

His Honour said that the action was for an irregular and improper sale— a sale by a mortgagee under circumstances which did not do justice to the rights of the mortgagor. It was ridiculous to suggest that this sale was a sale by auction in the prdper sense. The auctioneer happened to be going into the district, and he drove up with the owner .of the hotel, who happened to be the son of the owner of the furniture which, he bought. The furniture was bought by the owner of the property for the amount of the mortgage debt. The Bale, from first to last, was an unreal sale. He did not think that it was the intention of any of the parties to do anything which was not perfectly straightforward. It was not a proper transaction • however. It was the duty of the vendor to get a proper price for the articles in the interests of the mortgagor. Ihe proper course would be, if possible, to sell to the owner of the property, as it was only in this way that the plaintiffs could carry on the house. , This was in the interests of all parties, and it would not have been in the interest of anyone to have-sold the furniture at a displenißhing sale. But the sale had been made in an irregular way. The ordinary course in selling to a tenant coming into an .hotel "was to have the furniture bought at a price fixed by an independent valuer. It could hardly be suggested that there was any acquiescence in the terms of the sale. That there was an agreement that the furniture should be sold to Moffeti was clear, but there seemed to him no acquiescence that the sale should be a sham one, and that the furniture . should be knocked down tbTSioffett as the only buyer. On the contrary, there was plaintiffs' protest, and although they had remained silent for two years, they had not relinquished their right. He did not think that there had been any misconduct on the part of defendant or ' Moffett, jnr. They seemed to have acted straightforwardly, but had mistaken their rights. The only question was as to the amount of- damages, and this would be arrived at by the difference between £145 and the amount which the furniture would have brought had it been sold to a stranger who j was going into the hotel. The evidence was that £200 would have been a reasonable price under such circumstances, and judgment would be given for the plaintiff for £55, with. costs as per scale, disbursements and witnesses' expenses. ALLEGED DEPRIVATION. Margaret T. Snodgrass v. T. D. A. Moffett, a claim of £174 15s for wrongful seizure and damages. Mr W, A. Stout appeared for the plaintiff and Mr C. S. Longuet for the defendant. Mr Stout said that after the sale referred ; to in the previous action, Mr and Mrs Snodgrass.stayed on at the hotel for some time. [ A short time after plaintiff came to town, ; and while away a new tenant was put into ; occupation. Plaintiff, went back and tried | to obtain possession of some articles which . were her own private property. There were ! some small buildings and some clothes, <fee. < The defend nt refused to give up possession j of the buildings, and the clothes had been put out into the rain and damaged ; £134 15s was claimed for the buildings. Plaintiff then gave evidence, and in cross- ; examination receipts were produced showing that plaintiffs husband had disposed of the buildings to defendant. Witness protested that she had never authorised such a sale.

His Honour said that it was ridiculous for plaintiff to come and make a claim for these buildings. He understood that an offer had been made to settle the case, and if so he would strongly advise the plaintiff to accept? it. The parties conferred together for some time and then . announced that a settlement had been arrived at. The case was accordingly dismissed. CONJUGAL EIGHTS. Jas. Guy v. Jane Guy, was a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. £ii W. A. Stout appeared for the petitioner; there was no appearance -of respondent. Mr Stout Baid that the parties were married on the 26th Match last, and separated in a few days. His Honour : All you want, I presume, is to lay the foundations for subsequent proceedings for divorce. Mr Stont : That iB so, but up to a recent stage the pet tioner was anxious only for . the return of Mb wife. Evidence was given by petitioner and Mrs Little. An order for restitution was made, to be complied wjth in forty days.