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

SUPREME COURT

A MOTOIt-LORRY TRANSACTION,

His "Honour Mr. .Justico .Edwards presided at the Supreme-Court yesterday, anil heard the' case of J. Jinulshaw against J. E. Fitzgerald, a claim for .£750, for an alleged bread) ; of : agreement. ' .. i Mr. jr. Myers appeared for. the plaintiff, and the defendant was represented by Mr. A. W: Blair. . • . Jii the statement of claim it was .recorded thatplaintiff instituted an action against defendant in Wanganui, claiming ,£BSO for breach of warranty' by' the defendant on the sale of a Bessemer, motorlorry; Another action ' was commenced "by the defendant in the : Magistrate's Court, Wellington, claiming .£lO9 12s. 9d., and at the instance of plaintiff was re* [inoved into the Supremo Court. These actions were settled out of Court on tho basis that Fitzgerald replace broken parts , and repurchase the Bessemer .lorry so repaired for ,£750 within three months of the broken parts reaching Wellington. On. September 2, 1918, tho plaintiff delivered to the defendant .at Wellington all the broken parts of .the lorry with tho exception of the main shaft, as-tho. said .mail) shaft could not be found. Defendant agreed ,to have t>. main shaft ,made at the plaintiff's expense to avoid delay in repairing the lOrry. The sum i of ,£750 was payable to the plaintiff on December 3, 101,8, and had- not been paid;'plaintiff'therefore asked'for judgment- for that amount, together, with interest.' i : , For the defence it twis admitted that the broken partj? with the exception^of the main shaft had been delivered, but lj was denied that the defendant had .p'grevd to have a main shaft made at plaintiff's •expense.. Without the main shaft it was nit possible to complete the necessary repairs.' Defendant further claimed'that tho main shaft was not delivered to him until the end of the month of November, aiul that the' period of three months provided in the''agreement for the completion of the purchase had not expired. After hearing several witnesses called by both/sides His Honour reserved his decision. ...

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19190301.2.31

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 134, 1 March 1919, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
329

SUPREME COURT Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 134, 1 March 1919, Page 5

SUPREME COURT Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 134, 1 March 1919, Page 5

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