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
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DISTRICT COURT.

Monday, Junk 26. (Before His Honor Judge Bathgate.)

Heeles, M'Beath, and Co. v. John Hedjey. -&Claim L 213 13s 9d. This was a judgment summons. Defendant did not appear. No evidence was taken. . Mr E. S. my stated that tho defendant had sold all his property since the issue of the original summons. He wished the defendant to be allowed further opportunity of appealing, in order that be might be examined, and asked for an adjournment for a week, which was granted. W. and G. Turnbull v. A. antt/T. Inglis. —Claim L 197 6s 4d, for pictures sold. Mr Macassey for plaintiffs, Mr Smith: for defendants. - Counsel for the defence applied for an adjournment, on the ground that he had only just been instructed, which was refused. - George L. Denniston, salesman to plaintiffs, deposed that he sold certain pwtures to defendants. He bail -eeen

tho pictures in defendants' shop windows. The goods, were sent to Mr Inglis, and returned to plaintiffs shortly afterwards. Witness spoke to defendant on the matter, and an understanding having been arrived at, the goods weiesent back to defenlantp.— Cross-examined: No arrangement was made that the pictures should be opened out at defendant s premises for approval. Defendant never said in witness s hearing that he would not take the pictures. The invoice was in defendants' hands for some time. It was

after the second delivery that the goods were in defendants' window.—Richard Borton, carter, proved delivery of the pictures to defendants, and produced their receipt for the same.—Mr Smith wished to call evi-

dence for the defence, but the application was disallowed, no defence having been <#filed.—Mr Smith: Then I suppoe I must stand here and be slaughtered quietly.— Judgment was given for the amount claimed with costs.

Re application to remove the name of Mr J. Alexander Carrick from the list of contributors to the Sbag Valley Freehold Quarry Mining Company.—Mr Haggitt appeared for Carrick, and Mr Howorth for the Company. [Left sitting.]

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18760626.2.12

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Issue 4159, 26 June 1876, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
331

DISTRICT COURT. Evening Star, Issue 4159, 26 June 1876, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT. Evening Star, Issue 4159, 26 June 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