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

SUPREME COURT

THE CIVIL SESSIONS

His Honour Mr. Justice Ho3king presided at the civil sessions of the Supremo Umrt yesterday. A common jury of ch e was empanelled for tho hearing of tho first case on the list—a claim for .EoOl damages for alleged wrongful distraint. The plaintiff was Alice E. Pearco, .music teacher, of Wellington, and tho defendants wore Henry Ernest Koinptiiornc. company manager, and Wilhelm iv 1 ?}- ' E SS OI ' s ' laml a f? enlt ' both of Wellington. Mr. 0.- N. Bcero appeared for tho plaintiff, The defendant Kempthorne was represented by Mr. M. Myers, while tho defendant Eggers was represented by Mr. 0. C. Mazengarb. In tho statement of claim, it was set out that tho plaintiff (Mrs. Pearce) had been a tenant of a house in Wright btreet at a rental of £1 2s. Cd. per week. On April 5, the defendant Eggers, acting as agent for the defendant Kempthorne, Wrongfully distrained goods under the value of £i 9, which goods were exempt from distress under the Distress and Replevin Act. The defendant Eggers also wrongfully ejected the plaintiff from tho premises and relet them. By way of defence, it was said that tho distress was not illegal, as the plaintiff hud refused to give up possession of the premises. Thero was a counter-claim for rent. due, tho allegation being that tho sura of .£l3 10s. was owing by tho plaintiff on this account.

At tho clooo of the plaintiff's ca6e, Mr. Myers moved for a nonsuit for the defendant Kempthorne on the ground that there was no proof that ho liad given Eggers any authority to distrain. His Honour reserved decision on tho point.. . ,

Hearing of evidence for tho defence had not concluded at 5 p.m., when the Court adjourned until this morning.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19160516.2.86.1

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2772, 16 May 1916, Page 9

Word count
Tapeke kupu
298

SUPREME COURT Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2772, 16 May 1916, Page 9

SUPREME COURT Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2772, 16 May 1916, Page 9

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