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

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT—GISBORNE.

[Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.] TrksDAY, June 19th. COMMON SHELTON & CO. V. MULLOOI.Y. This was a claim for £BO 12s. 9d* for goods sold and delivered. Judgment was given for pliihtifi'a for £77 3s. and UOsts amounting in al) to £2 Bs. BOLTON V. LEGGATT. This was an action to recover the sum of £9 for a cow sold and delivered to defendant. Mr. Nolan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Kenny for defendant. The defence pleaded a set off by medical attendance, and fraudulent representation with respect to the cow. It appeared that the plaintiff in this case had agreed to supply defendant with a milk cow which had just calved, whereas the one defendant received had calved some four months previous to delivery. Upon the plaintiff being remonstrated with he had agreed to change the cow and replace it by one that would fulfil the Conditions of contract. This he bad failed to do. The defendant’s bill against plaintiff was originally for £6 15s. 6d„ but at. the request oi plaintiff the defendant had agreed to reduce his account from £0 18s. od. to £4 17s. This reduction was made on account of the plaintiff having promised to pay cash. The usual medical fees was 10«. fid. per mile. As the account had not been paid the defendant considered himself entitled to claim the original amount. Mr. Kenny addressed the Court > and submitted that his client was entitled to a verdict. The vendor had been guilty of misrepresentation and consequent fraud, thus tendering null and void any contract that might have been entered into. He quoted numerous authorities in support of his case* and confidently submitted that his client was entitled to a verdict. Mr. Nolan, on behalf of plaintiff, submitted that the sole cause of the cow not giving a larger quantity of milk was inferior pasturage, and poor feed. Judgment for plaintiff for £5 and costs, £1 2a. The amount not exceeding £5, no solicitors fees were allowed.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBS18830621.2.10

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1319, 21 June 1883, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
334

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT—GISBORNE. Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1319, 21 June 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT—GISBORNE. Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1319, 21 June 1883, 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