Vicissitudes of a Newspaper

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 286, 13 April 1889, Page 3

Vicissitudes of a Newspaper

THE LAST CHAPTER. At the Supreme Court on Thursday the case of E, P. Joyce v. W. Maude, claim £4OO damages for illegal sale of printing plant, was heard before the Chief Justice and a special jury of twelve (Mr George Scott, foreman). Mr Brassey appeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs Gully and Chrisp for the defence. It appears from the evidence that one Mrs Baldwin was proprietress of the Independent newspaper (now ceased publication), which was managed by her husband. The husband was indebted to the plaintiff in a large amount, and in order to secure himself the latter took an absolute conveyance of the property, and bailed it back to Baldwin. At the time Mrs Baldwin was indebted to the defendant in some £39 for rent for the premises in which the newspaper was carried on. Subsequently Baldwin was convicted of libel, and the plaintiff took' possession of the printing plant, &e. The defendant, on the assumption that the transaction between Joyce and Mrs Baldwin only amounted to a bill of sale, and was not a bona fide purchase, caused a distraint to be issued against the plant, but the bailiff was unable to gain admittance, and the plaintiff had the goods removed on a Sunday night to a shed hired by him for the purpose. The defendant treated this as a clandestine removal by the tenant and, as he might do in such a case, followed and seized the goods. These ware put up to auction and brought some £57, and the plaintiff now sued for their value. The action hinged on the question as to whether the sale was bona fide or not, for if the property was Joyce’s the landlord is prevented by the “ Distress Act, 1885,” from distraining for rent. Another point also arose as to whether the handing over of the key to Joyce by Mrs Baldwin constituted the former a tenant. Evidence was taken as to value, which ranged between £BO and £125. Issues were framed for the jury to answer as to whom the property belonged, and whether Joyce was a tenant of Mrs Baldwin, and if so, whether he removed the goods clandestinely. The jury, after half an hours’ consideration, returned with a verdict that the property was Joyce’s, and that he was not in possession of the premises as tenant. They assessed the damages at £125. Judgment was accordingly entered up for that amount with costs on the lower scale,