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.

CIVIL SITTING,

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Conollv.) The ease Harry Green v. Hum Hukunui and otheis, claim £62 10s, for work and labor done, and £IOO damages for breach of contract, came on at the Supreme Court yesterday. Mr R, N. Jones appeared for plaintiff. The defendants had not fi el a defence; Mr W. L. Rees desired to appear on behalf of the defendants, to consent to a judgment, but His Honor said that he could not permit him to appear at that stage. The claim arose out of a contract that had been stopped through the Validation Court refusing, after the Tahora case, to allow further money to be drawn. The plaintiff gave evidence, and judgment was given for £127 10s as arranged, with costs on the lowest scale. In the case Rawhiti Paerata and Apirana Kopua v. Fitzgerald Bros., claim £126, Mr R. N. Jones appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr \V. L. Rees (instructed by Messrs Rees Bros.) for the defendants. The plaintiffs set up a case that as partners they were to do three miles odd of fencing at £lO per mile. The defence was that the plaintiffs were not partners in the contract, and that it bad been arranged that the fence in question should be erected by Rawhiti alone, acting for his father Hone Paerata, who, it was alleged, had as his half share of the fence, agreed to find the posts and battens. The defendants acknowledged their liability for the labor of erecting, and paid into Court the sum of £35, which they said was a fair pi*ice after deducting a setoff of about £2B. His Honor found that the plaintiffs were not partners, and said he preferred the evidence of the Europeans as against that of the plaintiffs, but he said he would allow £6 of the set-off which had not been admitted, in addition to the amount paid into Court. The question of costs then arose, Mr Rees asking that no costs be allowed. Mr Jones contended that his clients were entitled to costs, and after argument His Honor certified to Supreme Court costs on the lower scale.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GIST19020417.2.44

Bibliographic details

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 392, 17 April 1902, Page 4

Word Count
361

SUPREME COURT. Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 392, 17 April 1902, Page 4

SUPREME COURT. Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 392, 17 April 1902, Page 4

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