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

SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

Thursday, 29th August. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.) The Court eat at 11 o’clock. OAKLEY (APPELLANT) V. W’HIOUT (RESPONDENT.) Mr. Ollivier for the appellant, and Mr. Hart for the respondent. This was a special case on appeal from the decision of Mr. Ward, the Resident Magistrate at Bulls, Rangitikei. The respondent had sued the appellant for a sum of £69 95., tor work done by the former as an architect, and had recovered £39 and costs. The appellant wished to put in evidence to show that the plans, specifications, and services of the architect had proved worthless ; but the magistrate excluded this evidence on the ground that the appellant had adopted the work of the architect by allowing the plans and specifications to be signed by the contractors, and the work to be commenced. The question for the Court was whether or not the evidence had 1 been properly excluded. His Honor intimated his opinion that the evidence ought to have been admitted ; but held that the admission or rejection of evidence is clearly within the discretion of the Resident Magistrate, and is, according to the provisions of the Resident Magistrates Act, a question upon which no appeal is competent. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with costs. BREEN V. CELL. This was a demurrer to defendant’s pleas, on the ground, generally, that they did not, any of them, answer the whole of the plaintiff’s claim, and were therefore bad. Mr. Ollivier and Mr. Fitzgerald appeared to support the demurrer, and Mr. Brandou, sen., contra. After argument, the Court delivered judgment over-ruling tho demurrer ; but intimated that as the pleas were so irregular as to have provoked the demurrer, plaintiff ■ would have leave to reply without payment of costs. K.UVATINI V. SUTTON. Mr. Leo appeared to support a demurrer to replication ; Mr, 801 l opposed. The demurrer was disallowed, with costs. Defendant to have leave to rejoin upon payment of costs of demurrer.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM18780830.2.22

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5437, 30 August 1878, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
326

SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO. New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5437, 30 August 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO. New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5437, 30 August 1878, 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