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

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, June 30. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) - A* and T. Burt v. Alex. Muir, of Christchurch.—This, an application for a fraud summons under the Imprisonment for Debt Act. 1865, was granted: ' Edward Moss, engineer, v. George Henry Bacon, upholsterer.—Claim, LlOJlsfid, balance of account tor goods furnished and work « ™ Air Joyce appeared for plaintiff, and Mr E. Cook for defendant, who pleaded that the work was done in such an imperfect and improper manner as to render it useless, and that the charge was excessive.—The claim was composed of sundry small items, part of which were passed, and part objected to. Judgment was given for L 6 10s, with’costs. v. Guthrie, Adams, and Rose.— Claim, LIOO, for trespass and damage done. Jn, tiua case, heard on Friday last, his Worship now delivered judgment as follows:—I have giveni this case careful consideration, and am of opinion that the defendant Guthrie is liable m the-Sum of 20s for trespass. I have more difficulty with the other defendants. There is no doubt that they carried out the orders of their master in an improper manner, and dMoaged-the plaintiff’s .goods. Theconteata of tfie tubs must lie paid for, and a moderate amount for damage to tho dresses and featUCTs. The plaintiff assesses his damage at -Lfbo. I think this is extravagant: and I may state that the weak point of the plaintiff’s ca fS. A wbi l® 110 ba « every opportunity of exhibiting the injury to tho dresses by experts, or could produce them in Court, we haven o satisfactory evidence of the damage to the dresses, feathers, or other goods, except by his oWnftestamony—while he had an opportunity of supporting his own testimony by that of experts, he appears to have neglected this, and thereby raised a doubt against himself. I think the sum of L2O, in the circumstances, sufficient allowance for the loss incurred. Judement for the plaintiffs foi 20s against Guthrie, and for L2O against Rose and Adams, with costs. *

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18750630.2.15

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Issue 3853, 30 June 1875, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
332

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3853, 30 June 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3853, 30 June 1875, 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