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

A FISH CLAIM.

At the local S.M. Court yesterday, Anderson and Young (Mr Moore) proceeded against A. Almond (Mr Hindmarsh), to recover the sum of £l6 15s 6d for fish supplied. This case had been adjourned from last Court day when evidence of witnesses for plaintiff who were unable to attend this sitting of the court, was taken.

Evidence of certain witnesses for the defence had also been taken in Wellington. For the plaintiffs Mr Moore called James Wilson, Walter Walker, William Neville and John Hannah, who all stated that it was not usual for fishermen to clean flat fish before sending them to Wellington. In the case cf schnapper and other round fish, they would sometimes clean them in order to reduce their weight* It was also the usual practice that if fish arrived in bad order, they would be immediately advised by wire.

For the defence, Mr Hindmarsh called A. Lazarette, who said that in very hot weather fish may go bad in a few hours. If a consignment of fish were found to be bad on arrival it was usual to im» mediately telegraph the consignor. A. Almond, defendant, in evidence, stated that the fish were bad on arrival, and that he had advised plaintiffs by letter. He did not know that it was the usual practice to advise by telegram. Some of the fish had been taken to the destructor, and he had paid a man to take another lot away.

After counsel had addressed the court, the Magistrate found that plaintiffs had executed reasonable care in forwarding the fish, and if they were bad on arrival, defendant should have advised them immediately by telegram. This he had not done. He was also of opinion that defendant had not taken the fish from the station immediately on their arrival, as according to one of defendant’s witnesses, he had taken delivery of three cases at one time, and plaintiffs account showed that only one case at a time had been forwarded. Judgment was given ,for plaintifff for amount claimed £l6 15s 6d, court costs jC i 12s, solicitor £2 7s and witnesses expenses

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH19090605.2.10

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 460, 5 June 1909, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
356

A FISH CLAIM. Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 460, 5 June 1909, Page 2

A FISH CLAIM. Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 460, 5 June 1909, 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