GOLDMINING.
A QUESTION OF REPORTS,
By Telegraph—Press Association. Danuovirke, last night. The case of Eoiey’s vA-eck Extended Dredging Company v. Cutton Bros, and Eaitblui, claim JiIUUO damages lor ullogea misrepresentation, came to a conclusion m tue tjupreme Pourt tuis evening, when the special jury returned replies iu all the issues but uio nrst ouc, wuicn ttiey were uuaulo to agree upou, in tavor ot Outteu bios, and Euiiniui. Tue hist issue was, "JLlid Button Bios, agree witu Neill and otliers to report upou the gold ueariug qualities ut tue claim ? ” Tne juiy was not agreed. Ttiey' decided tuat Eaiufiul was not instructed to do more tdau ascertain me suitaoihty ol tue cluim to be worked by tue siui-'e-bux dredge. They lound that Faituiul nouestiy believed in tne truth ot the matters communicated to him by Cutieii Bros, iu his letter of report; tuat the ordinary meaning of Faithful's letter was that he had, either Oy huusell or servants, made an inspection, and obtained the results therein stated, and Faithful did not write with the express nitoiiliuu ot conveying the above meaning, hut wrote negligently, without cousiUenug the meaning that the words would convey.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GIST19021011.2.19
Bibliographic details
Gisborne Times, Volume VIII, Issue 542, 11 October 1902, Page 2
Word Count
193GOLDMINING. Gisborne Times, Volume VIII, Issue 542, 11 October 1902, Page 2
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in