RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 380, 19 October 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Sat jeday, 17th October. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) 1 DUTTON V. ROBERTSON. The Court gave judgment in this case which was heard at length on Friday. His Worship, after alluding to some of the facts as brought forward in evidence, said, the main cpiestion appeared to ba>whether the defendant in continuing to retain the ship's papers in dispute w T as acting wrongfully. These papers comprised the vessel's register and a bill of sale. With regard to the former, the law clearly enacted that the detention of such a document was illegal. The defendant's counsel contended that the law only referred to cases where such detention impeded or interfered with the working or navigating of the ship, and did not apply in the present case where thj detention complained of was in direct accordance with an express arrangement between the parties. But his Worship did not see that any exception could be made in this case, even if there was a special agreement t j that effect (though this supposition was unsupported by the evidence,) such agreement could not override the Act. He was clearly of opinion that whatever claim the defendant might have, for commission and expenses he had no right to detain the vessel's register. 1 uen with respect to the other docu. ment, —the bi'l of sale. Some points had been raised as to the real ownership of the vessel and as to who were respectively the vendor and vendee which were not material to the issue. The defendant evidently looked upon the transaction as a sale from Green to Dutton, and detained the papers on his cvu account as against his claim upon Dutton and not out of any respect to any instructions he might have received from G-reeii, and the question then

arose us to the purpose for which this bill of sale was placed in his hands. If it had been handed to him to secure his commission, then he would have been entitled to hold, but the weight of evidence went to show that it was entrusted to him for the purpose of being sent to Auckland for registration. If he had so done he might have had a claim to keep the bill of sale, but having failed to do so he had no right to retain possession. With respect to the damages claimed by plaintiff, he did not think a sufficient case had been made out to justify more than nominal damages. He should give judgment for the restitution of the papers forthwith and <£l as damages together with costs.

Mr Pitt said the ruling of his Worship with respect to the detention of ships papers was in exact accordance with a recent decision given in the case of Bayley v. Crawford before the Queen's Beach.

Mr lyler applied that execution for costs might be stayed until the result of a cross action.

His Worship would allow this if the money was mean while paid into Court.