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

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Escp, R.M.) Civil Cases. M'Corkendale v. Douglass.—L2, a claim for forty loads of stone, at Is per load. The case was adjourned to Wednesday for further evidence. Wallis v. Smythe.—Ls 14s 2d, balance of account. Mr j. Smith for the defendant. The difference was one of measurement of stone supplied ; the plaintiff having charged 500 yards at ss, and reduced it to 405 yards. The defendant alleged that only 475 yards were supplied. Evidence was called to prove the measurement. It appeared from the evidence of the defendant that L 5 had been handed to Messrs Sievewright and Stout, in settlement of the account which plaintiff refused ; and on measurement being made it was found that he had been overpaid. Judgment for defendant. Gibson v. Allen.—L3 10s, for seven tons of damaged potatoes. The defendant pleaded only indebted for two tons. It appeared from the evidence that the defendant purchased seven tons, and that after fetching two tons he refused to take any more. Judgment for the plaintiff for L 3, with costs.

M‘Combe v. Proudfoot.—Ls 9s 6d, for work and labor done in clearing away scrub, &c., on the Port Chalmers Kailway. Mr Haggitt for the defendant. Receipts and certificates of settlement of account were put in by the defendant.—A witness in the employ of the contractors for the railway stated that be authorised plaintiff on his representations a certain time to clear away scrub.—The defendant was examined, and said he considered the items claimed were included in the contract and settled for at the final settlement. He knew nothing about the items claimed, until the summons was served.—His Worship, in giving judgsaid he did not consider there was the shadow of a claim as set up by the plaintiff. Judgment for the defendant. Godso v. Cornelius.—ln this case the defendant was required to show why he did not comply with a judgment of the Court, and pay the amount of a certain debt. He put in a discharge in bankruptcy, which include the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant was discharged.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18720422.2.9

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Issue 2862, 22 April 1872, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
352

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 2862, 22 April 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 2862, 22 April 1872, 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