INTERPLEADER CLAIM

Waipawa Mail, Volume LII, Issue 44, 24 December 1930, Page 3

INTERPLEADER CLAIM

■ iWNERIHIP OF A GRAMOPHONE. S PLAINTIFF SUCCEEDS. I(I At lln* witting of |ln* Magistrate'* Court at Waipnwu on the Ith mst. a • bflrmw *'■» hf«r«l by Mr Mowlcm, S.M., in which Miss Una Moroitcy sought till* establish hi r claim to n grnmoiJJrfl jrfcoiir ami records which 100 I been by the bailin' in connection 11 j u< 4i>acnt for £s(l damages against Mrs Ness in mi action ly, Hbv Mm M. Cheer* for defamation of l *■. Inn actor. I (is Worship reserved u iinl-'m«'iif. mol this wax delivered nt ‘Rflthc Court yesterday, being in favor of * r# Hthe interpleader claimant. The full *d ■ I ‘ xl ls ttH i°lloWM—t ■ Tins is an interpleader action hy the interpleader elninimit, ■ Mi"' Moronev, in the ease of Miss Ht'heers, pluintilT. against Mrs Ness, >r Bdeteiidant. The facts are:— •il On the 3rd dav ol .Inly. 1333, one r Cheers, as plaintilT, ohtained a P judgment against .Mi- Niss, defend i lain tiff issued a dixln-- warrant out ■of the Magistrate’s Couil, Waipawa, in pursuance thereof the bailiff, the tilth dav ol August last, seized gramophone and eertain molds u|H therefor. On the dav when the sale of >neh l lflr M l' J, s seized was advertised lor

by auction, notice of inlerwas tiled by Miss Moronev, *|^H f |.iiming that the gramophone and f seized lindei the ili-lres- war were her propelty. Tile hearing -il* li interpleader summon-, emne me on the Ith December last. K>*»m the fuels then sworn before i> i" clear that the interpleader is (lie >eeond daughter of 1 Ness, whose loinier hiishand. Mr died some years ago. Mrs a^HVunim, > had suhsiqmnlly married a f Ness, mid lie, 100, now deeeased. ■ Tin- eldest daughter ol Mr mid Mrs HMermiev (her lather being then was given a gold wristlet I* on the attainment ol her 21-t Hhrllid.ix. Between the time of the f^Hlttai nment of her 21-I birthday h\ eldest daughter, ami the attain 1 of that lurthdav h\ the inter elaiuiant both Mr Moronev Mr Ness had died. It was reeog by all memheis id the lamilv in these alleretl <-imim-t jiiicc< present eoiild not lie piireliased f* *r inleipleader elaiuiant, and it wii l i hctwcin them that on the h\ the interpleader t laim Hut of her 21-1 hirlhdav on tin ’JM last the gramophone and re should lie given to the inter pleaded claimant. And it is a fuel son I the Idle purchase in due Imd previously been by the inleipleader cluinuint out her wage-. All the instalments have been paid and the iustru HDifii| had become, on the Jsl Mareli the property ol Mrs Ness. On fllht' 3rd day of July, 1330, a Miss obtained her judgment agnin-l "Hltr- Ness ii> has been mentioned, i HCrnlir these rirciimstanees Miss I’na I interpleads mid claim- the ’phone and m cords as her pro On behalf ol the execution Mr darker submits that the onus of proof is on the inter claimant. That delay in I lie claim i> a strong factor, the «imiui-tanecs, again-l the pi - id the interpleader elaiuiant’s and that there is not in ihi the degree of proof e-sen!ial tlx establishment of the claim of claimant, and that shortly the

- ol the Mmikiupley Ai t re to the tmuster of property intent to defraud, delay, or hill neditors applies. ■ | have ron-ldcied the whole mallei ha\c come to the couclll-ioii that cl.iimi ol the intcipleadcr claimant he upheld. Me ha-, hi my opinion, discharged utm- of proof thrown upon her. HTW delay complained of i.- plainly ilui to any tiling on the part of the hut is cntiicly due to others were, I think lightly, presumed «,!, acting lor and attending to her ■ilensto. qH There i- no act wlm li, even il the of the Bankruptcy Act ap* to llie-e proceedings, which is Hfabllnl intleed, wii.- done with in HtOlt to dehat, delay, «•» hinder credi Xl,i* gill wa- made on the I-I pi;Ml. The judgment w a oh in thi' matter on the lid .Inly, in*.iillis after the gilt. Imlelded to others not amounting to mHolvcii. \ I Hot conclusive. Nmlui tin-ie emild have been no change tin location ol (lie gilt. It wa-, idwa\- has been, in the home hy Mr- Ness and her daugh (Out uniat ion ”! pos-e-sion w ith (cum and ohjeet of the «onveyi- no doubt evidence of I rand. »t.l i not evidence ol fraud where mil of posse—loll I roii-l-t with the nut me of I lie giant. ( *ee Vol. 1 f*. p. 171). In nil o| alleged gilt the -worn eviand cireunislaiice- mn-i he fl areonnl and I am ali-lied gill was made a- complete an.i oiiahly In- expected from to daiigliler. m In the result llu* claim ol (In inter claimant i- allowed. India I lie eirciimslance-. and prim beta ice of I lie delay, no ro-ls H ,r " alloui d I lie ( liiimanl save her ■ H Mr S W. Strang appeared for the Miss Moronev, and Mr ( . hH/ Harkcr lor the defendant. Miss ■ CWr-