HBH 1890 March 25 Rose A curious interpleader case was heard at the Resident Magistrate's Court yesterday-Before Mr G A PREECE R.M. It appeared from the evidence that Mr P GILLESPIE sued William ROSE of Chaucer Road to recover a sum of money and he subsequently proceeded to recover the amount by distress, putting the bailiff into what he thought was William ROSE's house, and which he further thought contained William Rose's furniture. It transpired, however, that William Rose, probably out of love and affection for his wife, owned neither the house nor furniture, and that his wife Mary ROSE, owned the lot. After hearing the evidence his Worship ordered the goods taken possession of to be restored to Mary ROSE, but he also ordered that the costs of the summons should be paid out of the £10 deposited in Court................more...................then During the hearing of the case the Resident Magistrate said that the Married Women's Protection Act was a bad one, and ought to be called the "Married Men's Frauds Facilitation Act."