Hide Articles List

6 articles on this Page




,-.:..... .HOLYWELL Cowry…


HOLYWELL Cowry COURT, This Court was held on Saturday Williams, Esq., Judge. < There were no of any pptiflular intereet brought before the .y shop debts. wwi«n Thomas John Evans.â-Thia was an action sought to roower payment forthwith of a tuta kof £450, due for jeseral provision*. The order as ad. applied for was granted. t>. Haughton. (DM.) RfaUL, claimant, v. Phillips, execution creditor. (Interpleader.) Mr. Ellis Eytofl appeared for Mr. Heala, of Wigan, to oppose application for payment out of court of & r £ 30 and costs in these action*, Okder the^ fol- lowing circumstances. One Philips hsd recovered a judgment in. this cou&against the defendant Haughton a coal master at Flint,-upon which execution had issued, and certain goods seized by the High Bailiff, which were claimed by Mr. Heald, by virtue of & bill of sale from HaughtoS. interpleader damons jwaS'boosequently issued to try lite validity i^ thfr-eKui, which waa.head before Mr. Davies, as deputy to the late Judge, when AStee&ia appeared for the claimant, and Mr. Adams of Ruthin, for the execution creditor. In order to prove the due registration of the bill of sale Mr. Ashton put in a certificate thereof, under tie hand of the Clerk of the Docquets of the Court of Queen's Bench, and also under the seal of the Court, to which Mr. Adams ob- J'ected, on the ground that the proper evidence should tave been an office copy of the whole bill of sale, and of the affidavit verifying it. The learned Judge adopted that view, and gave judgment for the exeou- tion creditor; against which the claimant appealed, but the attorneys differing as to the mode of stating the case much delay had taken place, and ultimately motion was made at the last court for payment of debt and costs out, which stood over to this court for the claimant to shew cause against, and Mr. Eyton now appeared for that purpose. He stated that he opposed the application on the ground that thruogh the technicalities of law there had been a failure of justice on the former trial, and he was therefore instructed now to move for leave to apply for a new trial, firstly :-Ou the ground that the claimant was taken by surprise by the objection of the creditor to the proof of registration, it having been misunderstood that the objection was to the bona fide of the transaction which the claimant was prepared to substantiate. In an ordinary action if the plaintiff failed in his proof he-was merely nonsuited and could try the cause again but there was no such analogous course in an interpleader case, and if in such cases the 1 claimant, however good his claim might be, failed in any technical point he lost his case absolutely, and had no right to try again, unless the court granted hiia a new trial. In this case it could not be said that there was no evidence of registration, inasmuch as the certificate coupled with the putting in of the original with proof of the identity amounted to some evidence, and as the claim of the claimant was a perfectly valid one he felt justified in asking the court to grant a new trial, upon which the omission at the first trial could be repaired. The creditor would not be damaged by this course if his case were a just one, inasmuch as the debt and coats were already in court, and the claimant was running the risk of double costs on a second trial. The Registrar stated that Mr. Heald, the claimant, was himself an attorney, and had been represented by another advocate at the hearing. His Honor observed that Mr. Heald had very strong grounds for an action for negligence aganst himself for not procuring the proper proof, as it was quite clear that the judgment of the court was right on this Eyton concurred in this, and said thatKt^wp. peal against it would be idle. He then went on to move upon a second ground, viz That the claimant was taken by surprise by the evidence of the bailiff on the hearing, that there was no one at all in possession of the goods, and such seemed to have been assumed by the court, whereas the fact was that the claimant had been long in possession of all the goods comprised in his bill of sale, before the seizure under the execu- tion, the effect of which would be thus. Any man in possession of goods could defend that possession against any one not having a better title than him- sglf. The execution cr. ditor could net possibly have such better title, unless he showed that the goods had passed from the defendant Haughton, to the claimant in an improper or illegal manner That he had not shown, therefore the possession by the plaintiff was amply sufficient without any proof of any bill of sale at all, until some better title was shown. The mere finder of a ruLy ring has sufficient property in it as against a wrong doer who takes it from him, to recover back its possession. Upon this ground he also applied for leave for a new trinl. His Honor said that on the first grourd he was decidedly and unhesitatingly againstgranting-tbe appli- cation, as it was no ground for enew trial that evidence had not been brought to the first which might have been so brought. As to the second grounditnadmoTe weight and force, and he would grant the application upon chat only. The motion to be made upon proper notice of affidavit at the next court. Money not to be paid out in the meantime without order.

[No title]