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
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, January 24. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq , R M.)

Trustees of James Copeland v. D. F. Main. —Clain LlB ss, for beer supplied. Defendant paid LlO los into Court, and pleaded a set-off for the remainder.—Mr Aldridge for plaintiff submitted that there could not be a set off against the trustees, there being no mutuality. —His Worship reserved the point till he heard the evidence.—Defendant was then examined. He said that whenCopeland went to Sydney in 1874, he left some valuable rams with him. Witness did not charge for depasturing them on his land ; but when they ai e up the grass he called on Mr Marshall (the late Mr Copeland’s partner) and asked what he should do. Mr Marshall told him tofeedthem with the best food, and witness then expended L 7 10s on hay. When Mr Copeland returned witness informed him of this, and Copeland said that he was about to commence brewing, and requested witness to take it out in beer. Witness did so, but unfortunately the beer account increased to LlB ss. Witness had tendered the trustees the difference LlO ISs, but they declined to take it, hence the action.—His worship held that there had been clear mutuality, and dismissed the action.

Ballantyne v. C. Sontag.—Claim LIOO foxdamage to fencing, &c., during occupancy.--Mr Barton, who defended, said he hoped to make “ short work ” of the matter by showing that judgment had already been recovered. The ease was set down for hearing in the District Court, and had been settled by defendants solicitor paying plaintiff's solicitor L2O. The cheque was cashed by plaintiff and his wife. An application was then made by the plaintiff’s to have the matter re-instated on the ground that his solicitor had settled the matter without his permission, but the court declined to reinstate it., The sum sued for in the District Court was LIOS, but the claim had now been reduced to LOO to admit of its being brought in tiiis Court. Plaintiff was nonsuited’

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18760124.2.8

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Issue 4028, 24 January 1876, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
336

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 4028, 24 January 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 4028, 24 January 1876, 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