RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.
Friday, February 3, 1882. [Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.] JOHN WALL T. MULDOON, M*DONALD AND LYNCH. Mr Brasseyappeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Finn for the defendants. In this case the plaintiff sued the defendants that on the 28th day of November last the plaintiff sold to the defendants the right to cut the grass seed then growing in and upon 88 acres of land situate at Patutahi, at the rats of 27s 6d per acre—£l2l; on account whereof the sum of £3O 5s has been paid by the defendants, eaving a balance due of £9O 15s. Mr Finn argued that the verdict must be for the defendants, and quoted in support of his argument from Addison on the Law of Contracts. He also quoted from the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds, by which he contended that if any agreement had been entered into by the defendants with the plaintiff, then it should be in writing. His Worship said ho would take time to consider the point of law taken by Mr Finn, and adjourned the case until Tuesday next. In the case of Drury v. Oxenham Hit Worehip granted an adjournment until to-day.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBS18820204.2.15
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1032, 4 February 1882, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
200RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE. Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1032, 4 February 1882, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
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.
Log in