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

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Dav. .. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Kyne v. Mouney.—A claim for L 7 14s 6d, for goods supplied. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs. Robinson and Co. v. Plaisted,—A claim for damages for breach of contract. The damages were estimated at LIOO. Mr Stewart for the plaintiff; Mr Harris for the defendant. The evidence for the plaintiff was taken in Queenstown. Mr Stewart stated the case, and showed that it was a claim for breach of contract for non-supply of machinery agreed for,. R. Kossbottom, one of the plaintiffs, stated that the order for a machine was forwarded to the firm by telegraph. They bad on hand a Robin’s 5 feet drum pressure engine and a Marshall and Son’s 9-horse power portable steam engine and thrasher. He afterwards saw the defendant and sold him the engine, which he afterwards wished to decline, on the ground that it was too large for working a thrashing machine and too small for working a sawmill—for both of which purposes he purposed using it. The plaintiffs promised to release him from his contract on condition of his buying another engine. A few days afterwards he info med the witness that he had bought a second-hand machine from Macdonald and Wood ; but oh beiug told he would be held to his original contract or tye sued for damages, he said, if Macdonald apd Wopd Released him, he would take the /engine, fjb wjjp still unsold, and was unsaleable %t presept.' Tpe vajue of 'the machine was L§so. H/e estimated tlm loss at LlOO— one portion of which was LB3 10a,

the interest on the amount, estimated at 15 per cent., and* the storage and depreciation of value Ll7 10s. Mr Harris raised the objection that the telegrams, not being stamped documents, were inadmissible as evidence of contract. The stamp duty of 2s 6d, chargeable npom them as letters, was paid together with the fine of L 5. J. Manning gave evidence as to the cost of storage and depreciation as well as t« his knowledge of the transaction. The plaintiff said the profit on the transaction would have been, including interest, LlO4 loa. Mr Harris addressed the Court, and held there was no contract completed, or if so, the damages sustained were very slight indeed. Judgment for plaintiff, L 32 with costs. His Worship said that the system of taking evidence in other Courts was very unsatisfactory, as there was no opportunity of cross-examining. It was not only in this but in other cases that it had been shewn.

Wright and M’Lenn v. Trustees in the estate of Scott and Josliug.—L2o. A rehearing, Mr Haggitt for the plaintiffs ; Mr Howorth for the defendants. Mr Howorth pleaded non-jurisdiction of the Court. The particulars of this case have before been given. The Registrar of the Supreme Court produced the deed of assignment and schedule of accounts. The defendant Josling was examined, and admitted receiving the watch from Porter on account of money owing, which he (Josling) had left as security for the payment of a debt. Mr Howorth held that an arrangement was made with the defendant’s partner to take the. watch so long before the deed of assignment was made, that the assignees had no control. His Worship said there could be no doubt that the jCourt had jurisdiction, and that the watch ought to have been delivered to the trustees. Judgment for plaintiff, L2O with costs.

Hyman v. M'Laren.—Ll7, for four weeks rent in arrear. Mr Howorth for the plaintiff; Mr Harris for the defendant. For the defence, it was held that the defendant was freed from obligation under the Bankruptcy Act, and that the trustees were responsible if any one was, for the rent. In evidence it was stated that the premises were taken at L 4 per week for twelvemonths, that a deed of as ignment was made, and that au offer was made afterwards for the premises at L 4 a week, provi<led| his tender for tho stock and book debts was accepted. It was accepted, but he denied having taken the premises for a year, and that defendant was a weekly tenant. [Left sitting.]

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18710602.2.11

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2587, 2 June 1871, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
703

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2587, 2 June 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2587, 2 June 1871, Page 2

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