SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4769, 9 October 1893, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

o Civil Sittings.

THIS DAT. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston and a Speoial Jury of twelve.) BENNY V. FBIEDLANDER. Mr. Stringer/ with him Mr Wilding, for the plaintiff; and Mr Purnell, with him Mr Eussell, for the defendant. In this case,' Joseph Benny, a, farmer at Southbridge, the plaintiff, claimed £750 k from the defendants, Friedlander Brothers, merchants of Ashburton, as damages for ' the alleged wrongful seizure of a flock of ' sheep. • Mr Wilding opened the plaintiff's case to the jury, and detailed the business transactions of De Burton Wilson, a son-in-law of Benny, with Friedlander Brothers. Wilson had owned the farm and the flock of sheep, and had mortgaged the property to the Bank of Australasia. The Bank had pressed Wilson, and he had gone to the defendaut firm, which had f agreed to find the cash to pay the unse--3 cured creditors of Wihon (John Orr and William Mitchell, of Ashburton) 10a in the £1, and to guarantee the overdraft at the Bank, and a mortgage over the clip. These arrangements had fallen through, and Joseph Benny had come to the relief o£ his son-in-law and taken over the guarantee. Friedlander Bros, had objected 1 to this, and had issued a writ againßt , Wilson for an old claim of £1500, and s having obtained judgment, had seized the sheep by the aid of the Sheriff, taken them

away from the run, and placed them in a paddock with inaufficient feed whereby many had died. The lambing season had just commenced when the seizure had been made. Benny had .£3OOO worth of interest in the run and flock, the mortgage, &c, having .been transferred to him. Wilson had been driven to • insolvency and the | business relations of the various parties i had become more complicated owing to the actions of the Official Assignee and the j officers of the Court. It was claimed for I Benny that he Bhould stand in the same position as regarded the sheep as the Bank I had done, because he had taken over the business of Wilson. He was entitled to the securities and the right of action. In this case the legal officers were practically on their defence for carelessness in placing the sheep they had seized in an environment that was calculated to cause great deterioration and a high percentage of mortality among them. Evidence of a lengthy nature was given to support this part of the claim, and to go to show the loss sustained by the plaintiff by the seizure of the sheep at the' instance of the defendants. Each witness was cross-examined in detail by counsel for the defence. t [Left sitting.] j