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

RESIDENT MA GISTR ATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., Kit., und Alex. Stewart, Reg , J P.) Thursday, Jan. 5.

Hopkins v. 'Whitoside. — Claim, £i 15s. No appearance of defendant. Verdict for amount claimed with costs.

Cranley v. M'Luskey. — Claim, £, , being value of fixtures illegally removed from promises owned by plaintiff in Wetherstones. Mr. Gooday for plaintiff, and Mr. M'Coy for defendant

It appears in this case that in August last Mr. W. Sheath bought of Daniel M'Luskey a shop and dwelling house, situated at Wetherstones. At that time, D. M'Luskey left the premises, leaving certain goods, viz., an iron rod, blinds for windows and rollers, and pigeon holes of jiost office, and some water barrels. Subsequently, Mr. Sheath sold the house and shop to Mr. Cranley, who, in his turn, rented the premises to Patrick M'Luskcy, the articles above specified remaining -still in the bull din ~. Some short time

afterwards, Patrick M* Luskey loft the premises, an 1 t;ok with him the articles, as he uou tandsd they were not fixtures.

Mr. M'Co^y contended, and he quoted legal authorities, that the articles specified were not fixtures. It had been decided that articles for the use of trade, although fastened to tho floor with screws, wore not fixtures. It had even been found that articles fixed to premises with molten lead were not regarded as permanent fixtures, as tliey could be removed without injury to the building.

Mr : Gooday contended that they were fixtures," iruHl? rested his case on the fact that the defendant ~h"sd- -no

right to the .articles. They weie Isft by D. M'Luskey, and even he had no right to take them after he left the premises, Even his being on the premises without the consent of Cranley was a trespass — he could not eveu remove the smallest piece of paper.

After mature consideration, th? Bench decided that the articles weiv not fixtures, and gave judgment for defendant with costs, and one guinea professional fee.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TT18710112.2.21

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 153, 12 January 1871, Page 6

Word count
Tapeke kupu
329

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE. Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 153, 12 January 1871, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE. Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 153, 12 January 1871, Page 6

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