FURNISHING CHATEAU
THE TONGARIRO CASE
(Bjr Telegraph.—Press Association.)
CHBISTCHUBCH, This Day.
Further evidence for the plaintiff was heard in the Supreme Coufc to-day in the case, A. J. White, Ltd., v. the Mount Cook Tourist Co., Ltd., in which £10,865 was claimed, the amount allegedly being owing as the balance of the cost of furnishing' the Chateau at Tongariro Park. For the defence, Mr. Sim said the Mount Cook Company and the Tongariro Company were separate entities. There were agreements between the two companies to promote tourist traffic and work for their mutual benefit. Though the companies co-operated, there was no merging of entities. Counsel said that White's had worked on the fundamental fallacy that a, man making a purchase without giving specific details of responsibility could be taken as representing the concern which most suited the plaintiff company. It was O'Connell's mistake to consider that M. Wigley. stood for nothing else than the Mount Cook Tourist Company. The case is proceeding.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19311009.2.96
Bibliographic details
Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 87, 9 October 1931, Page 9
Word Count
162FURNISHING CHATEAU Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 87, 9 October 1931, Page 9
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Post. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in