Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 7168x8704 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

VnVLL SITTINGS.
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22.
Before Mr Justice Hensman.)
M. Taqeess v. Seeligson.
In this case, which was continued from
the previous day, the plaintiff, Mary
Tagress, lodginghouse-keeper, Hay-street,
claimed from the defendant, L. Seeligson,
financial agent, Perth, £1,000 damages.
Mr. Purkiss, with him Mr. Forbes, appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ewing,
with him Mr. Downing, for the defendant.
The case for the plaintiff was that in
January of this year she, being desirous of
carrying on her business as lodginghouse
keeper in Hay-street West, borrowed 100
from the defendant on the security of her
household furniture, for six months, for
which she was charged £30. She was
to pay 52 per week until the expiration of
the period of six months, and then pay off
the balance of the £130. She paid regularly
until the time had nearly expired,
and on the 13th July her goods were
seized. The defence was that a breach of
contract had been committed, and there
was a counter-claim for £46 3s. 10d.
B. C. Wood, auctioneer, said that some
time during the present year the defendant
telephoned to him that Mrs.
Tagress would call, which she subsequently
did, and in consequence witness advertised
her boarding house and effects for gale in
the West Australian of July 9 and subsequent
issues. The sale was not effected
by witness' firm. Some days afterwards
he saw the furniture being removed.
Mrs. Tagress, the plaintiff, gave similar
evidence. Witness told Seeligson on July
14 that a gentleman who had noticed the
advertisement had offered to redeem the
bill of sale at a lower rate of interest.
Seeligson said that he had no objection,
but that he would want 1842 more in consequence
of witness being in arrears. At
that time witness was only two weeks, or
£4 in arrear. Seeligson afterwards pressed
her to close with the offer, but she decided
not to do so, as she could not see that she
would get much out of it. She told the
defendant this on July 13. While absent
from the house she heard that the " Jews "
were there, and on returning she found
that Seeligson's bailiffs had seized the
furniture and everything in the house.
Some clothing and other effects, and afterwards
the furniture, were returned. The
furniture was cold on July 18. She had
never received any account of the sale, but
had been told by Mr. Amsberg, whose firm
had sold the goods, that there would be
practically nothing left for her. She had
given Mr. Seeligson a thrashing with her
umbrella on account of his action in
the matter. She had not been
aware that the bill of sale included
all the furniture, whether specified
in the schedule or not. Seeligson told her
when she questioned him at the time of
the seizure that he only wanted to " do "
the landlord out of the rent.
Kate O'Farrell said that in January
last, while staying at Mrs. Tagress's, she
took an inventory (produced) of the furniture
at Mrs. Tagress's request, and it
was handed to the defendant. The in-
ventory did not include a piano, and the
whole of the furniture in three bedrooms.
She valued the furniture at between 6000
and 6500. i
Ezra Tagress, husband of the plaintiff,
described the seizure on July 13. A man
named Ballinger called and said that he
had come on account of Mr. Seeligson to
take the-furniture. Five other men afterwards
came in. The table was sit for
lunch, and the men took up the corners of
the tablecloth and rolled up in it everything
that was on the table. They refused
to wait till Mrs. Tagress came home. They
also took out a chiffonier which contained
glassware, etc., with the result that many
of the articles rolled out and were broken.
In cross-examination the witness admitted
having pushed Sallinger, but denied that
he had caused him to break some glassware.
Ellen Dooley, who lived next door to
plaintiff's premises at the time of the
seizure, said that the articles were handled
roughly, and a large quantity of glassware
was broken.
) Sophia Holmberg, formerly housemaid
j and waitress in the employ of the plaintiff,
also described the seizure. She saw a
number of men, after the goods had been
placed on the lorries, tipping the goods off
the lorries again. In cross-examination
the witness said that she saw some strong
ling between the men who were removing
the furniture and Mr. Tagress.
James Redman, clerk in the office of J.
Charles, land agent, and agent for plaintiffs
landlord, said that the plaintiff owed 2625 for
rent on July 11. On July 13, hearing that
the bill of sale holder was removing the
furniture, he went to the place and found
several men putting the furniture in
trollies. They seemed to be in a great
hurry. It had been previously arranged,
Seeligson agreeing, that the landlord
would not take action for the arrears
provided that Mrs. Tagress paid regularly
in future, and reduced the arrears when
she was able. Witness V the time of the
seizure had had no intention of distraining
for the rent, but on seeing the furniture
being removed he went to prepare a
distress warrant. The warrant produced
was prepared on July 13, though by mis-
take it was dated July 11.
This comprised the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Ewing said that the defendant would
allege that the plaintiff gave a bill of sale
over certain goods, which were afterwards
seized pursuant to the powers contained in
the bill of sale, and that the statements made
by witnesses that undue force and violence
were used, and destruction of property
caused were absolutely incorrect. The
only trouble which had arisen was caused
by the bailiffs of the landlord throwing
some of the goods off the drays on to the
footpaths, while a few articles had been
broken as a consequence of Mr. Tagress's
assault on the bailiffs. After the seizure
the plaintiff asked the defendant to return
the goods, and have them sold from the
premises, and this was done, the goods,
when sold with the plaintiff's consent, in
accordance with the arrangement, realising
about £40 less than the amount due to
Seeligson. The goods had been valued at
about £75, and they realised about the
valuation.
Louis Seeligson, the defendant, said that
he first had negotiations with Mrs. Ta-
gress with regard to a loan in January,
when Mrs. Tagress signed an application
for a loan of 2250. The application was
subsequently refused. Subsequently negotiations
were opened up with Mrs. Tagress
through Mr. Joseph, solicitor, and the
result was that a bill of sale was prepared
Mr. Joseph was not then acting as his
solicitor. Witness was not present when
the bill of sale was signed. Mrs. Tagress
said that her husband had no interest in
any of the furniture. She made default on
the instalments under the bill of sale on
February 8 and March 9. In June Mrs.
Tagress again got into arrears with the instalments,
and asked for delay. She said
that she only owed one week's rent, but on
their going to the landlord it was
found that she owed £19. On Monday
July 14 Mrs. Tagress suggested that she
should arrange to sell the furniture. On
the following day witness demanded
payment of £90, due on the bill of sale,
saying that he would give no further
notice. When the seizure was made on
the following day, two or three men, on
behalf of the landlord, also put in an
appearance. When witness arrived he
found that some of the goods had been
taken off the trollies and placed on the
footpath, and the landlord's bailiff admitted
having done this, saying that he
had taken the goods for rent. Witness
paid £20, the amount due for rent, and
released the goods. Mrs. Tagress^. suggested
that the goods should be brought
back, and sold on the premises, and
witness consented. Witness had been
informed that Mr. and Mrs. Tagress had
removed certain furniture before the
seizure, and he offered to forego his interest
if they returned this. They consented,
but the furniture was not returned. The
goods seized were subsequently sold. He
denied that he had ever asked Mrs. Tagress
for a further sum of 212 as interest. In
cross-examination the witness said that
the charge of £12, as interest, in the
counterclaim was an error. Witness had
never acquiesced in any arrangement
regarding Mrs. Tagress's rent, alleged
to have been entered into at Mr.
J. Charles' office. The original inventory
was handed back to Mrs. ' Tagress
after her first application for a loan was
refused. He had asked Mr. Joseph to put
certain linen, etc, in the schedule in the
bill of sale.
At this stage the Court adjourned till
the following day.
TO-DAY'S CASES.
M. Tagress v. Seeligson (part heard),
E. Tagress v. Seeligson, James v. Back,
Johnson v. West Perth Building Syndicate.
$