HAVES v. TYSON.
(To the Editor.)
As many of your readers, by fancying themselves placed under similar circumstances, will doubtless have felt somewhat alarmed at the inconsistency of the law as administered, on reading the report of . this case, namely :—": — " That a plea of set off and a plea of not indebted are inconsistent ; and that a plea of set off which claims money as being due from plaintiff to defendant as an answer to money claimed as being due from defendant to plaintiff is bad." The latter is too weak for my observation, and I shall feel obliged if you will please insert the following, which is from a law authority my friend Mr. M'Coy has kindly lent my other friend Mr, Copland, , on the subject : — " It is a rule of law that ' a plaintiff cannot make use of one plea [e.g. set off] a3 evidence to prove a lawful demand due him on another plea, [e.g. not indebted ;] for that a plaintiff cannot call in aid of a plea of set off to support hiß debt when the same is denied by the plea of not indebted." I with difficulty refrain from any further remarks. — I am, &c, John Stamper, Dunedin, Wftitahuna Road, April 7, 1871.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TT18710413.2.24
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 166, 13 April 1871, Page 5
Word count
Tapeke kupu
208HAVES v. TYSON. Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 166, 13 April 1871, Page 5
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.
Log in