RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
This Dav. i (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., K.M.) Civil Cases, Thomson v. Stumbles,—This was an adjourned case. M }' Stout for plaintiff; Mr M‘jicay for defendant. Mr M‘J\eay said that his client had beep unable t.o find the receipt for July, hut he hud receipts ‘for other payments ; which receipts showed that the rent had been paid regularly, but he had no further evidence to produce. His Worship said that the evidence was very conflicting, and in such a case documentary evidence was the best. Now, the whole of the receipts showed that rent was paid up to date, and-not in advance as stated by defendant, if the rent was to be paid in advance, why did the defendant take receipts for rent paid to date? He (Mr Strode) could only take those receipts as confirmatory of the plaintiff’s evidence, and therefore gave judgment for plaintiff for L 9 16s, together with costs. Tin re were several other cases set down for hearing, but they were settled out of Court.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18721115.2.9
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Evening Star, Issue 3040, 15 November 1872, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
173RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3040, 15 November 1872, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
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