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

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Monday, April 28, 1884

[Before J. Beswick, Esq., E.M.]

CIVIL CASES. J. Langskail v. Cope (Maori) — Claim 17s,

Judgment by default for the amount and costs.

John Mclnness v. J, H. Edmonds— Claim 10s. In this case the evidence showed that the plaintiff was engaged repairing the Opihi Bridge ; that he left a saw there ana came over to the Post Office, and when he went back he found it under a heap of timber, which the defendant had carted to the place. The saw was damaged, and he brought the action against the defendant to recover its value. It formerly cost 10s 6d, and he had had it for 17 years. Nobody saw the defendant throw the timber on the saw and the defendant denied he had done so.

His Worship said it was plain ’ the defendant acted negligently, and, therefore, he would give judgment for 5s and costs.

John Mclnness y. T. Wadsr orth —Claim £2.

In this case the plaintiff stated that he contracted in March last year to build a house for the defendant. When he went there he was waiting for timber for a couple of days, and he suggested to the defendant to give him a job of sinking a pump. The defendant authorised him to come into Temuka and order a pump from Nichol Bros. He spent four days in sinking the pump, but when he put in his claim the defendant refused to pay him.

The defendant stated that the terms on which he agreed with the plaintiff were—That he (defendant) pay for the pump, and that the plaintiff should sink it in consideration of getting it to supply himself with water while erecting the house. The pump was no good, and he had since to employ a blacksmith to sink another.

His Worship said he must nonsuit the case with costs. There was only oath against oath. The plaintiff could get further evidence and bring on the case again if he liked. The Court then rose.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TEML18840429.2.9

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Temuka Leader, Issue 1171, 29 April 1884, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
338

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Temuka Leader, Issue 1171, 29 April 1884, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Temuka Leader, Issue 1171, 29 April 1884, Page 3

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