Difference between revisions of ".MTQ1.MTY1MTk"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
of Plaintiff or parting with the proceed | of Plaintiff or parting with the proceed | ||
and commanding the payment of Plaintiff | and commanding the payment of Plaintiff | ||
| − | ? of preparing issuing serving the | + | [?] of preparing issuing serving the |
| − | ? | + | [?] |
Maguire affidavit The Defendant alleges that after the | Maguire affidavit The Defendant alleges that after the | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
distrained that his (name Chong) goods | distrained that his (name Chong) goods | ||
would be sold on the 25 September but | would be sold on the 25 September but | ||
| − | subsequently as (certaining?) from the ? | + | subsequently as (certaining?) from the [?] |
| − | that 5 days was the time ? for notice | + | that 5 days was the time [?] for notice |
| − | of sale under distress warrant he ? | + | of sale under distress warrant he [?] |
| − | to the party so notified ? ? that he | + | to the party so notified [?][?] that he |
had made a mistake and that the sale | had made a mistake and that the sale | ||
would take place on the 23rd instead of | would take place on the 23rd instead of | ||
the 25th and asked for return of the | the 25th and asked for return of the | ||
| − | notice ? given and he was told if | + | notice [?] given and he was told if |
| − | could not be ? | + | could not be [?] |
With this exception nether the | With this exception nether the | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
That he had no notice or intimation of any | That he had no notice or intimation of any | ||
| − | kind that an ?would be applied for | + | kind that an [?] would be applied for |
The Plaintiff observations and others have tried to | The Plaintiff observations and others have tried to | ||
establish that the Defendant from the | establish that the Defendant from the | ||
| − | beginning of the ? | + | beginning of the [?] |
the sale took the law into his own | the sale took the law into his own | ||
hands. That he mislead the parties | hands. That he mislead the parties | ||
whose goods were seized by giving them | whose goods were seized by giving them | ||
| − | a notice ? to throw them off | + | a notice [?] to throw them off |
Latest revision as of 06:57, 6 May 2024
of Plaintiff or parting with the proceed and commanding the payment of Plaintiff [?] of preparing issuing serving the [?]
Maguire affidavit The Defendant alleges that after the
seizure of the goods he notified ? the persons (name Chong) whose goods had been distrained that his (name Chong) goods would be sold on the 25 September but subsequently as (certaining?) from the [?] that 5 days was the time [?] for notice of sale under distress warrant he [?] to the party so notified [?][?] that he had made a mistake and that the sale would take place on the 23rd instead of the 25th and asked for return of the notice [?] given and he was told if could not be [?]
With this exception nether the Plaintiff or any other of the persons whose goods were seized were notified that the sale would take place on the 25th but on the contrary the Defendant posted ? 18 notices in different ? ? in the ? that the sale would take place on the23rd some of these notices were posted up on the same street and within a few yards of the ? of be the Plaintiff and (name ) Chong.
That he had no notice or intimation of any kind that an [?] would be applied for
The Plaintiff observations and others have tried to
establish that the Defendant from the
beginning of the [?]
the sale took the law into his own
hands. That he mislead the parties
whose goods were seized by giving them
a notice [?] to throw them off
