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

SUPREME COURT.

cim sitting. Monday, October 26. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Chapman and a Special Jury.) Dodson W Macandrkw.-This was an action brought by plaintiff. hotel-keeper at to recover M,OOO damages from defendant buporintj-nuent of the .Province of Otago, for ileual ejection fiom the refresbmeut moms at the* Port Chalmers railway station, and for 1 s-i sustained through the property of plaintiff being exposed * n the railway platform. For the defence the material allegations were denied. Macassey and Stewart appeared for plaintiffMessrs .smith, Haggitt, and Stout for defend d&nt Counsel for plaintiff opened the case, the facts of which are, briefly, that plaintiff obtaiaed a lease of the refreshment rooms from Messrs Proudfoot and Oliver, constructors of the Port Chalmers line, under an agreement that if the lease were not renewed valuation should be given by any inpotning tenant for the stock and fixtures of plaintiff. The railway and station eventually became the properry of the Provincial Government, and the latter, m September, 1873, called for tenders for occupying the rooms. Plaintiff sent in a tender, but it was not accepted, that of Mr fins 1 !? be i ng B . uc< t c f fu, > en January 8, i -.V! , Pr(mncial Solicitor and three bailiffs took possession of the rooms, turbine out plaintiffs stock and fixtures on to the platform and causing them much damage Mr Macasaey Slid the main questions for a juiy to consider were whether there was an agreement or lease between plaintiff and Proudfoot and Co. ; did that agreement provide that plaintiff should receive valuation for his stock and fixtures from any incoming tenant; did plaintiff become a tenant of the Provincial Government, on the latter obtainmg possession of the line, on the same terms as those of his agreement with Proudfoot and Co. } and did the Provincial Solicitor violate the terms ef the agreement ? ’ The plaintiff was in the witness box daring the greater part of the day, and Tiis examination had not concluded when we went to press.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18741026.2.8

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Issue 3643, 26 October 1874, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
335

SUPREME COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3643, 26 October 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3643, 26 October 1874, 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