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

A Defended Case.

At the Palmerston S.M. Court on Tuesday the Municipal Corporation sued W. H. Howe for 12s 6d for rates due. Mr .Moore 1 , who appeared for the defendant, stated that his client never had at any time owned property in <Palmeraton. He hiid explained this to the bailiff when served wltk the 'sumnions, and acting on lite bailiff's advice the defendant wrote to the Town Clerk stating, that unless he received notice of withdrawal of the summons he would attjend^ and claim damages. He had not received any notice of withdrawal, owing to the letter from the Oounoil office going to Foxton, instead of to Moutoa, where the defendant lived. His client had to attend Court and he therefore claimed his expenses for the time he was away from home. Mr Keeling stated that the summons had been issued to W. H. Howe, of Foxton, and no instructions had been issued to serve W. H. Howe, of Moutoa. Mr Keeling read the letter which had been written to Mr Howe and which had not reached him. The letter explained the position and stated that if Mr Howe was not the owner of the property judgment would not be obtained against him. His Worship said that it seemed to him that it was an unfortunate mistake and that Mr Howe was certainly entitled to bis expenses. Mr Keeling remarked that any expenses that were incurred in the matter would be set up against the property. . Mr Moore iaid that it was very unlikely that the real owner of the property, Mr E. A. Howe, would

consent to pay expenses incurred ~ owing to a mistake. Mr Keeling said that he did not consider any blame attached to the Council. No instructions had been given to the bailiff to alter the m address or serve the summons at Moutoa instead of Foxton. His Worship said that fresh pro* ceedings had better be instituted against the owner of the property. He would have to nonsuit the Counoil on this case. Considerable discussion ensued on the question of costs, £1 10s 6d eventually being allowed, which included solicitor's fee 10s 6d. — Standard.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH18970225.2.13

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Manawatu Herald, 25 February 1897, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
360

A Defended Case. Manawatu Herald, 25 February 1897, Page 2

A Defended Case. Manawatu Herald, 25 February 1897, 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