Correspondence.
We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents. KEMP v. ANDREWS. •■TO THE ED non. Sir—-In your notice of the case of Kemp v. Andrews in last week’s issue, there occurs a slight inaccuracy. It is there stated that a nonsuit was granted on the grounds- 1. That the plaintiff had not produced bis miner’s right. As a matter of fact Mr Kemp produced his miner's right in Court along with the certificates of his race, but placed it in his pocket again after giving his evidence. The Warden overruled 1 the first objection, but granted a nonsuit on the second *• that Andrews was acting as a servant to the White’s Reef Company, and that consequently the action should have bean brought against that Company.”—l am, etc., J W. P. Foerest. Alexandra, March 2nd, 1886.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DUNST18860305.2.11
Bibliographic details
Dunstan Times, Issue 1253, 5 March 1886, Page 3
Word Count
141Correspondence. Dunstan Times, Issue 1253, 5 March 1886, Page 3
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in