Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1019, 3 January 1882, Page 2

j ■ do ■nt ■»t ■nH»n, 4 *'i .^■ on; i . . ' like ■ • ; ■ We . . ' he 4 some ' ■ailed ' us who ’^K‘X/W TE ’ S 4 Psora *. -jg£i l. *?*;■ JanuSU P" ■' ap- ■'<’-/£!• Rees ” ‘.■ fpn ant no juris- ■£• plai-n■-jf-’-ZtiiiW against ' £l44 There eredited. money ijj£Zc2® na l debt, at Gisand he SJgW referred to the statenot sufin assumnecessary the case. It be put to to subgoing on at the time to time, sought by objecting to deal with accord-Z-BB?’ Act it

for a solicitor to deliver ■it-off bis bill one clear month, signed before taking action, presept instance the set-off was on' the 31st December, some time after the original were instituted in the K.M. Another objection was that submitted by Mr not signed by him, as reby l»w. For these and other plaintiff’s counsel submitted defendant’s contention as to ■ Court not having, jurisdiction, be disallowed. Rees replied, and quoted' prece■s to sh»w that he was fully jusri|H by lav in pleading his set-off. regird to the question of delay with the case, it was inpossible for him to have attie R.M. Court, having been »vay to Auckland and Napier work of a most imcharacter. He submitted with to the question of set-off, that a could in such cases, always ■it that plea, whether or not a furbill of costs had been delivered. Mur Rees said he would consent te Beh case —the claim and counterKim—being adjudicated upon by His ■orship, each to rest upon its merits. BMr Brassey replied at some Bngth, and argued that the Bt-off should not be taken into Binsideration by the Court under any Brcumstances, as it had not been furBished until after the date set down in Bie summons for the hearing of the ■rigin al case. He would, however, be ■uite satisfied for each case to be gone Into upon its merits, by His Worship. I The adjournment was concurred in liy both parties, when His Worship fixed Friday next for the day of hear-