SURREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16433, 23 May 1921, Page 8

SURREME COURT.

TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS, CIVIL SITTINGS, The sittings of the Supreme Court j were continued to-day before his Honor ; Mr Justice Herdmazi. CLAIM FOR TRESPASS. Elizabeth M’Seveny, Upper R-iccar-ton, sued Henry Thomas Muirson and Francis Duncan Muirson, Christchurch, builders and contractors, for £ool general damages and 0s Gd special damage*. She sjiid that before and on March 11, 1921, she was in lawful possession of a house in Racecourse Road, Riccarton, as tenant of Mr E. Pigeon. Defendants erected it, and thov alleged that they had not been paid for the work. They, without notice, entered the house, seized her chattels, removed them, and lost, damaged or destroyed some of them. She also alleged that defendants assaulted her by pushing her aside and used grossly insulting language to her- On the same day aa the alleged trespass, defendants, with a traction engine, removed the house. Defendants denied that plaintiff was lawfully in possession, and denied th© other statements by plaintiff. In u counterclaim, they alleged that plaintiff fraudulently conspired with E. Pi goon, to whom she was engaged, to procure defendants to build the house for her. and for Pigeon, or ono of them, to obtain the benefit of the houao without paying for it. She represented that she was the owner in equity of the section under an agreement for sale and purchase with Murray Hobbs, and agreed to pay defendants a reasonable price, by raising £2OO on a bungalow and by mortgagng the house to bo built for the balance- The house cost £425 14s. When defendants pressed for payment, Pigeon said that ho was the pwnor of the land and that defendants had no right to erect tho house, which had reduced the value of the land. Plaintiff gave instructions to Hobbs for tho transfer of the land and house to be made to Pigeon and not to plaintiff, and she transferred her bungalow to her son, alleging that she was trustee for him. Having divested herself of tho only property out of which defendants could have satisfied a judgment for £425 14s, defendanta removed the house, first carefully removing from it plaintiff’s effects. Defendants claimed £6-50 damages for fraud. Mr F- D. Sargent, with him Mr WJ. Cracroft Wilson, appeared for plaintiff. and Mr H. J- Upham for defendants. Mr Sargent said that it was an extraordinary case. Ho had searched the British law of tresi>a*ss but had failed to find a parallel. Some years ago, plaintiff’s son. Reginald M’Seveny, a jockey, bought a piece of land in Racecourse Road, Upper Riccarton, lot 8, out of his savings. As lie was under age, it was in his mother’s name. Later she l>ought two adjoining sections, lots G and 7, the first for her son Cyril, who then was at the war, and the second for Reginald. Reginald did not seem to care for it, and did not pay the instalments. She was unable, to pay tho instalments. Pigeon took the section over and paid the instalments. Harry Muirson, who was plaintiff’s son-in-law, urged her to build on lot 7. f ->he said that she could not do so, as it belonged to Pigeon. Harry Muirson. in spite of her protests, completed the building. She wrote to Pigeon, who lived at Denniston, telling him what had taken place, and he replied giving her j>erniisaion to use the house. She went into it. Harry Muirson then billed her first for £387, and later for £425, for the house. Pigeon said that he had had an independent estimate made of the house, and that the cost at the present price or materials was set down at £270Mrs M’Seveny wan engaged to be married to Pigeon, but he was killed in an accident on the West Coast before the marriage took place. The counterclaim was actuated by maliceElizabeth M’Seveny, plaintiff, said that the house was erected against her will, and aginst Mr Pigeon’s will. Amongst her possessions lost were £3O in notes and a gold brooch. To Mr Upham: Sho arranged with Mr Harry Muirson for him to erect a small cottage for £SO on lot 8, but not for tho building he erected on lot ,7. Mr Upham; Did you instruct the foreman aa- to putting up the cupboards ?—No. His Honor : Will you deny that you had any conversation with any workman about the houao?—l don’t remember having had. His Honor: Did you, or did you not? —I don’t remember having had any. Douglas R- Wanklyn, solicitor, said that Pigeon paid a deposit, of £4O, took over the land, and paid the instalments, and instructed witness to transfer tho land to him, but it had never been executedRita Holmes, Yaldhurst Road, said that Mr Harry Muirson, on the day he went into the house, threw a lot of things out over Mrs M’Seveny’s head. He swore at Mrs M’Seveny soveral times, aud told her to get out- Pictures, wool, jerseys, rags aud other things were all mixed up. (Proceeding.)