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

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M., and Alex. Stewart, Esq., J.P. Monday, 28th Marcii.

Wootton v. Long.— Claim of £14 19s. for bread supplied.

Mr. Keen intimated that he appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant appeared in person.

Mr. Copland (who was sitting at the table) rose and asked by what authority Mr. Keen appeared.

Mr. Simpson repeated tho question to Mr. Keen.

Mr. Keen desired to know whether the question put to him was from the Bench or from Mr. Copland.

Mr. Simpson said he would refer to the Resident Magistrate's Court Act ; and having done so, and having read the clause relative to agents being allowed to appear, asked Mr. Copland if he represented the defendant.

Mr. Copland : No ; I am not in the case at all. I understood that a case was coming on, and I came up to protect my rights as a solicitor.

The Bench asked the defendant if he intended to employ the solicitor, to which he said "No." The Bench decided that as there were no " special circumstances " in the case, and as the defendant was not employing any one to appear for him, the plaintiff must conduct his own case.

Mr. Wootton went into the box, and being sworn, stated that the defendant had acknowledged the debt.

The Bench asked defendant whether he owed the money.

The defendant stated that he did, but that he had given a note of hand for it, promising to pay it on the 4th April, and that the note had been taken by plaintiff.

Plaintiff said that he had such a note, but that since taking it he had found that it was useless and illegal, of which he was not aware when he took it ; also, that defendant had expressed his intention of never paying him.

The Bench asked for the document, and Mr. Keen asked their Worships, as the plaintiff had employed him, but was now deprived of his assistance, to hand a note to plaintiff. This was done, and plaintiff asked for a non-suit, which was granted, with ss. expenses.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TT18700331.2.24

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 112, 31 March 1870, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
351

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE. Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 112, 31 March 1870, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE. Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 112, 31 March 1870, Page 5

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