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

SUPREME COURT.-CIVIL SITTINGS.

MONDAY, JUNE 19.

(Before His Honor Sir George Arney, Knight, Chief Justice.)

The civil business of the Circuit Court was commenced this morning. His Honor took his seat on the Bench at 11 o'clock.

Mohi v. Craig.-Mr. MacCormick for plaintiff; Mr. Hesketh and Mn Rees for defendant.'. iJThis cause had been set down for bearing first among the special JUI7 cases — Mr. Rees informed the Court that it would occupy four days.—His Honor :In that' case I shall take tbe common jury causes first.— Mr. Rees: I have affidavits here made by Mr. Richmond and Mr Mac arlane* stating that Mr. Harr s is sawing a large quantity of this timber, notwithstanding the injunction issued by the Court to protect it. The matter is not only important as between tbe patties, but may be also important for the consideration of the Court on other grounds.—His Honor said he would hear the application on Tuesday morning.

Ritchxb v. Ritchie and AwnTHEE;—Mr. Rees for the plaintiff; Mr. Whitaker for defendant.—This was an action to determine copartnership rights, and to compel the defendants to account. The plaintiff. Thomas Ritchie the elder, is resident in Auckland, and the defendants, Thomas Ritchie, jun., and Robert Hulton Ritchie, are sheep farmers in the Chatham Islands. The declaration set out that on or about the first of January, 1864, the plaintiff and defendants entered into partnership. The following w»re the issues submitted to the jury :—l. Bid the plaintiff and the defendants enter into partnership as in the declaration alleged ? 2. Was the business carried on as a co-partnership from 1864 to the 27th of September, 1870, the date of issuing the writ? 3. Has the co-partnership acquired certain real and personal property f And 4. Have the defendants refused to account to the plaintiff for Buch real and personal property "as had been acquired under the co-partnership ? The defendants pleaded a sreneral denial of tho allegations set out in the declaration.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS18710619.2.14

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 449, 19 June 1871, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
328

SUPREME COURT.-CIVIL SITTINGS. Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 449, 19 June 1871, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.-CIVIL SITTINGS. Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 449, 19 June 1871, Page 2

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