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
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. WEDNESDAY, BeOEMDEH 8. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) Robinson v. J. N. B. M‘Greooii —An action to recover the sura of L 3.000, alleged to be duo on a contract to clear defendant’* run of cattle by shooting or driving them off, in consideration of doing which plaintiff al.cged that he was to receive half the gross proceeds arising from the sale of tho cattle driven off and hom the sale of the hides of th se killed, less half commission on the sales. His Honor delivered judgment in this case to the following effectln this case defendant obtained a rule to snow cause why the verdict in the action should not be set aside and a nonsuit entered, pursuant to leave reserved at the trial; aad as the alternative why the judgment should not be arrested. Plaintiff also obtained a rub; to show cause why the damages should not be increased, or why a new trial should not be granted on tho (ith issue, on the ground that the verdict on that issue was against evidence. IBs Honor was ot opinion that the first rule must be discharged. As to the rule for increasing the damages or for a new trial upon tho issue of damages, lie was of opinion that it should be discharged also. If the defendant by his wrongful act prevented the plaintiff from performing tho contract, the plaintiff would be entitled not to a half share of tho proceeds of the cattle, but to such a sum as he lost by such prevention. That sum would he half of the gross proceeds of the sale of all the cattle on tho inn, leas half commission on ! sales and less the whole of the expense of get- i ting tho cattle in. The jury, from the evidence, might well consider that plaintiff had

undertaken an expensive and difficult contract, and that those expenses would he vei y heavy! Under these circumstances they found nominal damages, ami w.n fully justified in doing so. Nelson Bo\rd op Education v. William Charles Robertson (Demurrer). — Mr Stout appeared for pi diititts, Mr Macassty, with him Mr (t. B. Barton, for defe .d:mts. Mr Stout opened the c ise at great length. Left sitting.]

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18751208.2.6

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Issue 3990, 8 December 1875, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
378

SUPREME COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3990, 8 December 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3990, 8 December 1875, 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