Wangauni Supreme Court.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1688, 19 April 1886, Page 4

Wangauni Supreme Court.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Saturday, April 17. JKNNSEN V. PERKINS. This ense whs callerl o», but Mr Baker for the plaintiff, stated that they were not yet roady to go c»n with the case, the witnesses not being m town. He was ready to go on with Gale v. Audrewartha.-— Mr Hutchison, for defendant Perkins, did not object to the adjournment. — Hip Honor Baid that he would put the case to the ond of the jury "cases, and informed Mr Baker that it was very unfair to jmors that counsel had not their cases ready. GALE V. ANDREWARTHA. „ \ . Mr Atkinson for the plaintiff, and Mr Baker for defendant. The following jury were empanelled : — J. Shaw. T. Thatcher, I. Slade, W. Joanston, Mr T. Thatcher was chosen as foremon. The claim of the plaintiff was that on the 21st February, 1881, he lent Andrewartha Bros £400, to be repaid on terms ; that an the Ist January, 1885, plaintiff demanded; repayment, but defendants failed to repay the same. Defendants replied, admitting that the sum of £4UO was lent, bat at the same time it was mutually agreed that the sum should be repaid by work and services agreed to be done and rendered by the defendants; that the work was duly performed to a value exceeding £400; that m March 1884, a general settlement of accounts was agreed upon, plaintiff releasing defendants from all claims. — Mr Baker opened his case at length, stating circumstances relating to the sale of the bush farm which Gale had owued near Palmerßton. After taTtinsf evidence and hearing counsel, His Honor addressed the jury, who then returned a verdict for the dufendant on the claim, but for the plaintiff on the counter claim . for £505. A discussion followed as to costs, His Honor pointing. ont that had the defendants contended themselves with merely proving a settlement of the claim, they would have been entitled to costs, but having entered a counter claim for work and labour done, they must take the risk. The question of costs on the counter claim was reserved. Judgment passed for defendant on the claim for £400, with costs on the middle scale. On the Court resuming at two o'clock, the divorce case, Roberts v. Roberts, m which the parties interested come from Palmerston, c&rae on, but had to be again adjourned. — Herald.