An Important Case.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 561, 24 January 1891, Page 2

An Important Case.

LANDLORDS’ BIGHT OF DISTRESS. A case of considerable importance came before Mr Booth on Thursday morning, when Arthur Searle sued W. H. Tucker for £27, the value of cattle seized and sold under a distraint for rent against one CLriatian Haaoon. Messrs Chrisp and E. N. Jones appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Day for defendant. Christian Hansen gave evidence that being in want of money in June last, he offered to sell to Arthur Searle seven cows for £27. The plaintiff at first hesitated, but subsequently he consented. Hansen did not want all the money at once, and took a cheque for £5, subsequently at different times drawing the remainder, and when the full amount was drawn he gave a receipt for the whole. The various cheques were produced. In cross-examination Hansen admitted that he was in debt when ho sold the cattle, and that rent was due to the defendant, but ho did not tell the plaintiff. Arthur Searle detailed the circumstances under which he had bought the cattle, corroborating the first witness. Hansen had come to him, saying he was hard up, and wanted money to buy food. On that account plaintiff had bought the cattle. He left them for Mrs Hansen (her husband was at the Motu) to milk, and use the milk until such times as he could sell them again. He could have taken them away next day if he had wished. In cross-exami-nation he stated that he had seen Tucker after the seizure, and had offered to show him the butts of the cheques, but Tucker would not listen to him. He did not offer to show the sale note. Hansen had not told him he was in difficul ties except that he was hard up and wanted money. Borne six months ago Hansen informed him he owed money to Boylan. He made no arrangement with Tucker about the cattle, although he knew Tooker was Hausen’s landlord. Replying to Mr Booth be explained that the cheques were made out and signed by him “ Hansen and Co.” which wag tha name of his firm. He was entitled to draw ujoney from tha firm, and he did it on this occasion. That money would be eventually debited against him in the final arrangement of tha firm’s affaire, but thete were no books in which the amount would be entered at present. Ths value of the cattle was agreed by counsel to be taken the price realised at auction. Mr Day moved for a nonsuit on three grounds— (I) That tha contract was alleged to be made on 2lst June and the evidence showed that the contract (if any) was made on 18th October. (2) The contract (if any) was with JTanssß and Co. (3) The transaction wae fraudulent within the Statute 13 Eliz: 05. A long argument ensued between counsel, numerous authorities being quoted pro and con, and eventually His Worship reserved his decision fine die.