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

SUPREME COURT.

THE SILVERSTRBAM LAND CASE. Legal argument was hoard in llio Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Sim yesterday in the case arising out of an allegation of fraud by members, of a syndicate against another member of the syndicate. The parties were Frederick lienry Pitcher (builder), Mary Ann Pitcher, Minette Wardrop, Andenwn, and A. Gray (barrister and solicitor), plaintiffs, and William Charles Alfred Dimoek (bacon-curer), Alexander John M'Tavish, and William Edwin Redstone (carrying on business as land agents, under tlie style of A. J. M'Tavisli and Co.), defendants. Mr: C. P. Morison appeared for the plaintiffs, and Sir John Findlay, K.O. (with him Mr. F. E. Ward), for defendants. Plaintiffs alloged in effect that Bedstone had been instrumental in forming ihe syndicate to purchase a block of land at Silverstreani. ljut that he had con-, cealed from the other members of it the fact that he was personally interested in the land as a vendor. The. plaintiffs, therefore, sought to have:— This partnership agreement rescinded; An account taken of the partnership transactions; A. receiver apnm'nted by the Court to wind up the affairs 'of the partnership; The defendants severally and jointly to indemnify plaintiff's against all claims with respect to the partnership: All sums contributed bv the plaintiffs to the partnership refunded, with (i per cent, interest added—plaintiffs to give credit for nil sums received from the partnership—or, alternatively, plaintiffs to recover .£3OO each, as damages for loss claimcd to have been sustained by them in resneet of the allesred deceit and misrepresentations of the defendants; Defendants restrained from dealing with the assets of the partnership. Evidence in the case had been heard in February, and yesterday Mr. 'Morison moved for judgment; on the facts beforo the Court. Loral aruMiment had not concluded wh"n the Court adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to-day.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19120412.2.8.3

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1412, 12 April 1912, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
302

SUPREME COURT. Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1412, 12 April 1912, Page 3

SUPREME COURT. Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1412, 12 April 1912, 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