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.

Friday, December 3. (Before -I. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following cas 's with c'-ats Sbotover Terrace Gold Mining Company (Registered) v. George Woo how, LI ss, c ill ou ten shares; same v. Robert Tapper, 1.12 10s, call on ICO shares; Bamejjv. John David Hay. r;, L2 ids ; same v. Walter Henry Revison, L4O; same v. Robert Owen. 12s 6d ; same v, Michael John Mulligan, LlB 15s ; same v. Win, Lewis, L 6 5s ; same v. John Todd -Goodsir, LI ss. His Worship refused to allow professional costs in all cases where the amount was m der L 5, Mr Sinclair represente >. the company. Scott and Smith v. Thomas Hetbcrington.— LI 10s, work done.—Judgment was given for plaintiff, with costs. Andrew Rambnry v. the North-east Valley Road Board. —Claim of LIOO, damages through the Board making a road along sections 6 and 7, Upper Harbor district. Mr Maca-soy ap peared for the plaintiff and Mr Stout defended. —Plaintiff’s case was that he owned forty-two acres of land in the North-east Valley district. By the _ road being made his land had slipped six feet, and tho garden fences, with three piles of the house, were carried away. Ihe house was dfl the plumb, and the doors would not work. Had ho not propped np the house with piles, it would have tumbled over altogether. Amongst others plaintiff had wished the road made. Hugh MTadyen, clerk to the Board and inspector of tho road in question, stated that there was no slip on the plaintiff’s land, the slip actually being on the roadline, —J. E. Coyle stated that plaintiff’s house had been wedged np to ha secure against further damage, and it was not safe. Over 1.100 would be required to repair the damage to the foundation of L' e house. —Mr Stout moved that plaintiff be nonsuited, contending that as the work had been done in pursuance of the Ordinance (put in) on a rood line, this suit could not be m iut-dnod, The evidence bad not proved any negligence.—Several witnesses having been examined for the defence, bis Worship reserved judgment.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18751203.2.14.4

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Issue 3986, 3 December 1875, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
359

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3986, 3 December 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3986, 3 December 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