SEIZURE OF STOCK

Waikato Times, Volume 96, Issue 15024, 22 August 1922, Page 4

SEIZURE OF STOCK

INTERPLEADER PROCEEDINGS. At the Magistrate’s Court, Hamilton, yesterday, interpleader proceedings were instituted at the suit of the bailiff between Mandeno Jackson (claimants), and- Wyatt. ‘ Claimants (Mr Stace) sought- to prevent a seizure of stock executed by the bailiff under a distress warrant issued by Wyatt (Mr Meldrum) against Mrs C. M. Davidson. They based their claim on a bill-of-sale executed by Mrs Davidson’s husband , in their favour. Mr H. F. Saunders, manager for Mandeno Jackson at Hamilton, stated tfyat lie had instructed Messrs. Rogers andyStace to draw up the bili-of-sale in question. He instructed them to include the stock now in the possession of the bailiff: As far as lie knew they were the husband’s property. He ■had never heard anything to lead him to doubt this. Mrs Davidson had been present at the drawing up of ‘the inventory and the branding of the stock, and ’had 'made no objection to their inclusion.

Under cross-examination he stated that before the execution of this billohsale he had been shown by Mrs Davidson another, engrossed In her own name, and giving security over the stock in question* to Wyatt. He informed her that, if she signed this bill-of-sale his firm would sell up her husband. He then had made out the bill-of-salc under which his firm claimed. / This was done in order to forestall f Wyatt. The bill-of-sale was signed' by the husband. Mr Saunders presumed that, as Mrs Davidson made no objection, she had made a,,present of the stock to her husband. Mr Mears then gave evidence to the effect that he had acted as solicitor 's for the Davidsons in the whole transaction, and that he had, always been Instructed that the stock belonged to the wife alone. Mr Russell stated in evidence that he had acted'as solicitor for Wyatt in all his transactions with the Davidsons. He had repeatedly been informed by the Davidsons that the stock belonged to the wife, who had signed several bills of sale over them. The claimants had consulted him in the present matter and had never disputed Mrs Davidson’s ownership. The Magistrate, Mr Young, held that the stock belonged to Mrs Davidson, and that the bill-of-sale in favour of the claimants, being signed by the husband, was void. Judgment, with costs, was accordingly entered for Wyatt.