B. M. COURT, GISBORNE.
THIS DAY. (Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) J. Warren v, J. Bobenton. Adjourned at request of defendant to Tuesday, 26th instant. //. McKay v. L. G. Dirty. Claim £llBs. Judgment for plaintiff. S. -V. Wilson v. AUister Brown. Claim £25 12s. on judgment summons. Mr. Brassey, for plaintiff, claimed an immediate order for payment of full amount. Order made that the amount be paid in three weeks, or in default 27 days imprisonment. W. Adair v. Mary Ann Jones. Claim £21135. 9d. on judgment summons. Mr. Finn for plaintiff. The defendant stated she" had made an offer which Mr. Adair refused. She had realized £196 in the estate. All other creditors had been paid. The reason she refused to pay this amount now was because of a sum of £l5, which had been received by Mr. Adair and Mr. Tutchen on account of a contract. They also held the remainder of the plant, she had no means at present, and had to go out washing to earn a living for herself and children. She had a farm at Patutahi, which until all the money is paid, belongs to the Crown. It was put up by auction, but the purchaser did not complete the sale. Mr. Brassey said he had consulted with Mr. Finn, and as the defendant was not represented by counsel he would state that it was very doubtful whether the Court oould make an order against the administratrix of an estate. Mr. Finn would consent to an adjournment to have this point looked up. The case was adjourned to the 26th inst. DeCosta v. Bidgood. Judgment summons. Claim, £1 14s No appearance of defendant. Order made that the amount be paid in one week, or in default two days’ imprisonment. W. Cooper v. S.P.B. Co. Mr. McDougall for plaintiff, Mr. Brassey for the company. This was an action brought to recover £94 10s damages for detention caused through action of defendant company. W Cooper deposed he entered into a contract with the South Pacific Petroleum Company. The agreement made with Mr. D. Isles is put in. He was ready to perform the contract. On the 13th June he was instructed by the loeal manager to desist from going on with the work as the directors in Sydney had resolved to stop all work. A fortnight after this he saw Mr. Isles, who told witness that no further word had come from Sydney. Witness told Mr. Isles that the contract was going on. Later on witness saw Mr. Isles in the Company’s office; Mr. Stubbs being present. Mr. Isles said he had written to the Company on the subject but had not received an answer. Witness informed Mr. Isles that he was willing to compromise with the Company for £4O, and terminate the contract which up to date amounted to £75. Mr. Isles promised to wire the offer to Sydney. Witness enquired after this if there was any reply. He was informed that Mr. Weaver had got the job of removing the machinery, the same work that witness was engaged at. He had two teams of bullocks, two drays and one man employed for 36 days. Did not complete the work because the Company’s manager prevented me doing it. Cross-examined by Mr. Brassey—Was willing to waive the amount charged for between 10th and 17th June. Mr. Weaver never told me not to go on with the contract before the 17th. He did not receive a letter cancelling the contract until July 21st. He did not consider Mr. Isles’ letter sufficient to stop him in his contract. Mr. Weaver, for the defence, deposed that he had told plaintiff not to go on with the work after the contract was made until instructions were received from Sydney. Mr. Brassey submitted that there was a breach of contract, but the injury done was not of such a nature as the plaintiff to claim the excessive amount for which he had brought the action, which he thought was simly preposterous. Mr. McDougall contended that this was not a case of remoteness of damages as Mr. Brassey attempted to prove. All that was sued for was immediate damages for delay j resulting from breach of the contract. The plaintiff had begun his work before receiving the letter from the manager. * Judgment was reserved until Friday morning.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBS18840819.2.21
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 213, 19 August 1884, Page 3
Word count
Tapeke kupu
725B. M. COURT, GISBORNE. Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 213, 19 August 1884, Page 3
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.