Supreme Court.
j Monday, April 19. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Gillies.) GALE V. ANDBEWABTHA. In this case discussion on the question of costs was taken.— Mr Baker stated thnt defendant had not been put to any extra cost m bringing m witnesses to defend the counter claim, as they were brought to support the contention that work of the value alleged was not done aa stated m the statement of defence, aud therefore they were simply brought for a purpose common to both the defence and the counter claim. He quoted Mason v. Brontmn, Chancery Division Law report, to prove that special costs could not be claimed. Green v Sevin, 13, Chancery Division, pnge 595, was cited to show that the method he had adopted m stating his defence and counter claim was proper. He contended thnt the verdict for the defendant was virtually a verdict on the counter claim, and therefore he asked that his Honor enter up costs accordingly. — His Honor asked them to hear Mr Atkinson on this point, and pointed out that he would have to show that the witnesses could not be required if he had only to meet the dafence, His Honor decided to enter up costs for defendant on the middle scale,- and on the counter claim for defendant without costs. JENSEN V. PEnKINS. Mr Baker for plaintiff and Mr Hutchison for defendant. The following jury were empanelled — W. H. Batchelar, H. Alexander, T. Bush, H. Prideanx, A. Sontherland, T. Wixcey, W. Blair, A. Woolford, C. W. Cowper, J. Bnwen, R. Brandon, and R. Holden. Mr Bush was chosen as foreman. Before opening the case Mr Baker astted His Honor to rule whether Uio plea needed amendment to show that plaintiff acted as an agent. He contended.that an agent, where as m this case he cou tracts m his own name, though acting for other principals, was the proper person to sup. — His Honor would not decide the question at that stage —Mr Baker then opened his case, and stated that m September, 1883, thn plaintiff for Mc-ssrs Richter Nannestad and Co. had instructed defendant to report on the title of a block ot native laud which the plaintiff was desirous of purchasing. Defendant searched the title, and a report was received from the defendant stating that the title was perfectly . good. Plaintiff, relying on this, had entered into contracts, and paid many moneys on account of- the same. It was only when the plaintiff had sold the land that the solicitor for the purchaser, m investigating the title foi'nd lhat it had no value whatever, as there was a restriction over the land. Defendant had been asked whether there was any restriction on the land, and had replied m the negative. The claim of the plaintiff stated that defendant was a solicitor practising at Palmers ton North-, and about the- month of September, 1883, was engaged by' plaintiff to investigate the the title of the Eairanga Native Reserve, consisting of 683 acres. Fore the losses incurred by the alleged default on the part of defend aut, plaintiff asked for" JSOO damages, also £300 special damages and legal expenses, £900 for loss of profits, and £237 12s interest on purchnse money pnid to native owners— total £1937 12s. I There wero two statements of defence filed, one dated 17th April, and the other 12th April ; the 1 .tier he alleged showed a complete change ot front m the defence, and plaintiff was entitled to some consideration on this pomt — His Honor said that if he could show a material change, plaintiff would be entitled to an adjournment at defendant's cost — Mr Baker asked to have both pleas read to show ' the jury the .. difference m the tales told, but His Honor declined to allow this. — On going through the pleas it was found that the alterations were not such as to prejudice plaintiff, and therefore the case wns procieded with. The amended plea was read, stating that defendant had given plsintiff notice thnt the title was defective, and had advised him to refrain, from purchasing at thnt time. — On the cohelußion of Mr Baker'i address Mr Jensen was called to give evidence*— tJerald.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MS18860420.2.26
Bibliographic details
Manawatu Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1689, 20 April 1886, Page 4
Word Count
701Supreme Court. Manawatu Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1689, 20 April 1886, Page 4
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.