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

Magistrate's Court.

(Before Major Keddell, S.M.) Waimate, August 15th. A. Philip v. Wilson Bros. —Claim £24, balance due for erecting a building. A counterclaim was put in for °£24 damages for delay in completing the building. Mr Lee (Oamaru) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Clement for defendant. Me Clement held that there could be no action taken, as there was no cause of action shown in the plea. A large number of details bad not been given in the claim, and these details could not be supplied in Court. He quoted a number of authorities in support of his contention.

Mr Lee said that the authorities quoted were out of date. I’he tendency now was to simplify • methods of procedure. The Magistrate said that there had been, no doubt, a certain carelessness in drawing up the plea, but they could not say they were ignorant of the nature or the action. It would have been better to have complied with the forms of the act in drawing up the plea, but bo regretted the waste of tune in arguing this point. Any objections should have been made earlier. He would hear the case. Mr Lee stated that plaintiff bad agreed to erect the Waimate Times office for £BOS. He had been paid £2B, and now claimed the balance, m .’

A. Philip gave evidence in support of Mr Lee’s statement. He agreed to erect the building by January 81st, but it was not completed till April 21st. Mr Clement cross-examined witness at length, producing correspondence between the two parties. After very long argument and the quoting of a Humber of cases in support of hia argument, Mr Clement called

w. \V. Wilson, who stated that a clause contained in the specification had been deleted without bis knowledge. The withesa detailed the various items of loss sustained by him. The counter claim was £24, being twelve weeks at £2 per week penalty. M. .Smith said be made a claim upon Wilson Bros, for not getting into the new building, but it was not proceeded with. He did not think there was any loss sustained by Wilson Bros, by not getting into the building on January 31ft. Judgment was reserved till next Court day.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WDA19010817.2.14

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume III, Issue 190, 17 August 1901, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
371

Magistrate's Court. Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume III, Issue 190, 17 August 1901, Page 3

Magistrate's Court. Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume III, Issue 190, 17 August 1901, 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