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
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

This Day [Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.] There were no criminal cases for hearing this morning. Civil Cases. Erskine v. Huddlestone.—Claim £5, for goods supplied. Judgment by default for £5, and costs of Court. McKay v. South British Insurance Company. Mr Kenny for plaintiff, and Mr Brassey for defendants. In this case Mr Brassey said that he had agreed with his learned friend on the other side to ask for an adjournment for a week, on payment of counsels’ fee. Mr Kenny applied for plaintiff’s expenses, which the Bench agreed to. The case was then adjourned to Oct. 3rd. Hurbey v. Ross. Claim £45 12s lOd, on dishonored promissory note and interest. Mr Brassey appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant did not appear. His Worshipgavejudgnientfor £43ss lid, with costs £3 7s, giving interest at 8 per cent instead of the 10 per cent claimed. Hurbey v. Ward, Claim for balance of account, £9l. The plaintiff was unrepresented by counsel, and Mr Kenny appeared for the defendant. Mr Kenny said that he would object to the case being heard by His Worship, as it was quite beyond his jurisdiction, the amount involved being over £5OO, and the set-off, which was disputed, reduced the claim to £9l. In reply to His Worship the plaintiff said he had nothing to say in the matter. He would leave it with His Worship. His Worship said he had no option in the matter. It was perfectly clear that he had no jurisdiction, so he must nonsuit the plaintiff with counsel’s fee of £3 3s.

The cases of Nicolas and Co. v. Kaimouro, and Nicolas and Co. V. Rangi were enlarged to the 24th October next, Hubbey v. R. Wright.

Claim £ll 16s lOd, on an account stated. Mr Brassey appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr McDougall for the defendant. Mr McDougall asked for an adjournment for a week, on the ground that the defendant had only been served last Saturday, and there was no time to look over the accounts which were very voluminous and extended over a period of four years. It would be necessary to investigate tlie books of the late Cuptaiii Road, and it Would also be necessary to see Mr King, tlie late partner of the plaintiff in the matter. Mr Brassey opposed, and said he thought that this was only a ruse to get a week’s time.

. His Worship considered it was hardly right tliat a summons should be served on the Saturday for a defendant to appear on the Tuesday following. It was too short a notice altogether. He would adjourn tho case until thia day week, 3rd October, on payment of the Counsels fee of £1 Is. Thelwall & Co', v, Haase,

Claim £2O Us 6d, for meat supplied, in* eluding £7 00s, for a promissory note. His Worship gave judgment, by default, for £l3 Is 6d, with costs, but declined to include the promissory note in a claim for goods supplied. Williams v. Ml’llooly, . This was •en action by a landlord against his late tenant for removing off the land at the end of the tenancy, a colonial oven, some fencing-wire and other things, belonging to the plaintiff, and for not removing some horses and cattle belonging to the defendant until two or three weeks after the end of the tenancy. The plaintiff claimed £32 Os 6d. Mr Kenny appeared for the plaintiff; Mr M‘Dougal appearing for the defendant. The defendant’s counsel admitted that the defendant had done wrong in removing the oven and some of the things; but contended that the defendant had been entitled to remove the wire, and keep the horses and cattle after the end of the tenancy : and he contended that the damages claimed were excessive. The Bench gave judgment for the plaintiff for £4 2s, with £4 Os costs. On the Court resuming at 2 p.m. the case of Knight v. Baker was called on. Mr Kenny appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Nolan for the defendant. This was a claim for rent, £75, due under a deed. Several legal arguments between learned counsel took place, and witnesses were called pro and con. Judgment was given for the defendant, with costs. [We shall give a resnme of the case tomorrow, as we are crowded out by advertisements this evening.]

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBS18820926.2.11

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1159, 26 September 1882, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
720

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE. Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1159, 26 September 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE. Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1159, 26 September 1882, Page 2

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