Untitled

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4746, 17 July 1883, Page 2

Tub oabe of Hill v. Leonard, which was reported in our issue of last night, will give a useful lesson to persons who give bills of sale on their effeots. Briefly, it appears that the plaintiff in this case gave a bill of sale to Messrs Wilkin and Co. over his horse and cart and other artioles on his premises. The Bill of sale contained tbe usual proviso about removal of the artioles. Notwithstanding this, the plaintiff did remove them, and went off with the horse and oart for tome weeks. Meisrs Wilkin and Co. naturally took this as being an aot of larceny, and kid an information accordingly after consultation with a lawyer. The plaintiff was arrested and kept a prisoner for several days, but released when the horse, cart, &c, were restored to the

defendants' employees. For this he brought his action. Judgment was given for the defendant, with oosts £30. Wow, however hard it may have been on the plaintiff to suffer imprisonment when he had no dis* honest intent, it must be admitted that he had himself to blame for it. Ec should have known that he had no right to go off with, the horse and cart, or to remove the other goods. Tho length of time he was absent was quite enough to justify grave suspicions, and to remove tho caso from the category of malicious arr«te.