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

The Graff-Park Case.

. ■.. — ; . • • . .-.•■. .1 At the^M.-Gonrt to-day -^the above cas*.was heard.- Mr Stuite appearing for the plaintiff and Mr Hnnkins for the defendant. After evidence had been taken "the defendant was fined m the Biun of £50 arid costs £2 3a, no order bring made as to counsel's fees. Mr Hanking' for. defendant gave notice; of appeal' The! full report of, the case willappearin to-morrow's.issue. The following is the ruling of the ResideniK Magistrate m the Borough Council case Graff y. Park. ; I fully recognize/the importance;of tli'S case. I recognize the fact the law has proyided^means wher«by informera may proceed -against -Councillors who make or enter into contracts 1 m contravention of the Act. Dealing first- with the facts I find that on the 30th of June : the defendant was a Cr of the Borough ot Palmerston N. That prior to that date and on that date' there was an indebtedness of the Council to him for stationery supplied and that either on or after the 3rd June payment was made. I take it that the cases referred to by. defendant's counsel Lewis v. Caff and Mjcholsbn v. another, go to show that the ehgagementg entered into betwen the defendant .m this case and the Palmerston Borough Council w^re contracts:- 'r-telce it i: that Mr Reeling acted as Town pierk m purchasing the eoods and that he purchased on behalf of the Borough Cpnncil, and that the Council sanctioned the engagement and apprpvedithe payment made for the goods supplied. I consider thatthe.two ca^es referred to strongly support the plaintifiTs case. As a matter pf law I believe there was a cbnftriftjt,; and ; l;_ take it that the defendant was cencerned m Btfch contract up to the; time of, payment which I presume was ...sbprtlyrafter thex 3rd of June; ,t conclude that .plaintiff must prove his case conclusively to.get a judgment. All he Has dphe is to prove his case up to the 3rd tTune. I therefore enter up judgriient for £50 and costs £2 3s. I make no order for counsel's fee.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MS18850903.2.16

Bibliographic details

Manawatu Standard, Volume X, Issue 1445, 3 September 1885, Page 3

Word Count
342

The Graff-Park Case. Manawatu Standard, Volume X, Issue 1445, 3 September 1885, Page 3

The Graff-Park Case. Manawatu Standard, Volume X, Issue 1445, 3 September 1885, Page 3

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