Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DISTRICT JUDGE RAWSON

(per pebss association.)

New Plymouth, Maroh 18,

The charge brought by William Humphries against . Rawson for dlsponaing with a jnry which had to try the main facts man application of W. Bayly, was called on. Wm. Humphries said that the bank adranced the firm Humphrlei and Sod, £300 for the redemption of Homphtiei property for whiob Bayly's promissory note was given to witness' wife for the sam of £2233. The firm became bankrupt and Bayly proved on the eitate Witness' wife's olalm was rejeoted. The jury whloh was summoned to haar a certain lnue In the case was discharged without a reason being given by Rawson and he ad jud:o»ted without one. bit R. Stoat ; His contention was that there was no Valid order tor a jury m the first instance.

Humphries stated that bis wife made betstlf liable to Bayly for £300 that he guaranteed.

Homphrles' next charge was one of undue luflaenoe. Witness being an unoertlfioated bankrupt «ned for debt) and the case was dismissed with costs. He sued again and Mr Govett who appeared for defendant objected as oosts had not been paid. The debt had been contracted with witness after bis bankrupioy. Toe oase was dismissed.

Humphries' tvldenoe oonsisted of an acoonnt of what had tramplred during his bankruptcy when the creditors opposed his wife's olalm.

In the coarse of the evidence Sir R. Stont said It appeared that MoLauchlan found the brains, William Bayly the money, and Staodlsh the reipeotabllity when Humphries started to bring the charges against Rawson.

Win. Bayly was the next witness. He ■aid he respected Rawson as • private gentleman bet not as Diitrlot Judgo. He gave •■ his reason a osae where a wrong decision wai given on an agreement, bat m answer to Sir R. Stont he admitted he oonld not Interpret an agreement bettor that a legal man. In reply to Mr Jolllcoi Bayly *ald he considered Rawson leaned towards Samael who was oonduotlng the OMB*

Sir B. Stout pat In the agreement m dispute to the Oommfsstoners.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18890318.2.31

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2090, 18 March 1889, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
341

DISTRICT JUDGE RAWSON Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2090, 18 March 1889, Page 3

DISTRICT JUDGE RAWSON Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2090, 18 March 1889, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert