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

A CURIOUS CASE.

A case was recently tried before Mr Justice Fellows in Melbourne that displays some strange features. It was an action to recover L 7,000, due'partly on foot of a promissory note, partly on two bills, and the balance money due for services rendered, Messrs Ireland, Q.C., and Williams, for plaintiff; Messrs Kerferd and Box. for defendants. The father of the plaintiff, who is a Miss Ricketts, had been in partnership in dairy farming with the late Patrick Cody Buckley, who died intestate recently, having a large amount of property, of which the de fendants as creditors of the estate had obtained letters of administration. In the course of business Buckley had given a promissory note for LI,OOO to Mr Ricketts, and this had been endorsed to the plaintiff by her father. There were also two bills, each for LSOO held by the plaintiff in connection with certain transactions also with Buckley. That plaintiff also claimed, as wages due to her by Buckley, L 4,320. Jt would appear that she had been in the service of the late Mr Buckley, as housekeeper, for twenty-five years. Shortly prior te his death he had made arrangements to marry her. For this purpose he had purchased the furniture necessary, the wedding ring had been bought, and it only remained to perform the ceremony, when the deceased was seized with the illness of which he died. Plaintiff claimed Ll6O a year for the twenty-five years she had been in the service, which amounted to L 4.320, and for this amount Mr Buckley had drawn a cheque and left it in his safe, but it had never come to the possession of the plaintiff. .Secondary evidence afforded by the block of the receipt was given, and on this it was specified that the sura was given for good and faithful service for twenty-five years. The case was somewhat complicated, from the fact of the promissory ngte for the LI,OOO having been lost subsequent to the action being Drought. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount, a bond of indemnity being given for the LI,OOO promissory note, lest it should be subsequently found and proceeded upon.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18730619.2.19

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Issue 3223, 19 June 1873, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
367

A CURIOUS CASE. Evening Star, Issue 3223, 19 June 1873, Page 3

A CURIOUS CASE. Evening Star, Issue 3223, 19 June 1873, Page 3

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