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, AHAURA.

Friday, November 27. (Before 0. Broad, Esq., R.M.) : Doolan v. Murray.— A claim of L 44 10s for goods ... supplied in 1868-9. The plaintiff, a farmer at -Totara Flat, was formerly storekeeping at Duffer Creek, and the defendant was one of a party of miners working at that place and dealing at the plaintiff's store. The members of • the defendant's party left one by one, r leaving him responsible for the partnership account, and it wa9 alleged by the | plaintiff that the defendant agreed to I accept this responsibility, but this he denied. In 1869, the plaintiff assigned his estate for the benefit of his creditors, but from some cause the assignment was not carried out, and the plaintiff filed his schedule. After proceedings in Bankruptcy were over, the plaintiff purchased i the book debts due his estate from the Trustee, and: the present, he alleged, was one of the debts so purchased. A document was put in purporting to be a salenote of the debts from the Trustee in Bankruptcy, but it was urged for the defendant that there was nothing to show that the debt had not been recovered by the Trustee while in possession of the books. The law of the case was argued atjsome length, and' eventually the plaintiff was nonsuited by the Magistrate, on the

ground that there was no schedule with the deed by which the debts, were transferred from the Trustee to the plaintiff, and there was consequently nothing to prove the debt now sued for was among these sold the plaintiff. Mr Staite for the .plaintiff, Mr Shatter, for the defendaut.

Marshall v. Montgomery. — A claim of L 5 Is Id for storage of goods at Totara. The defendant did not appear, and service of the summons at Westport was proved. The Magistrate said he had received a communication from the defendant disputing the debt, but remittiug a cheque for the amount, under protest, and requesting that the hearing might be postponed until he (the plaintiff) visited the district. Verdict by default for the amount claimed with costs.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GRA18741203.2.7

Bibliographic details

Grey River Argus, Volume XV, Issue 1974, 3 December 1874, Page 2

Word Count
350

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA. Grey River Argus, Volume XV, Issue 1974, 3 December 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA. Grey River Argus, Volume XV, Issue 1974, 3 December 1874, 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