AN EXPLANATION.
(To theEditorof the1)4117.) • Sib—l should feel extremely obliged if you wpujd' mention tliaf in the'R.M. Court on Wednesday rg lny case, Armstrong v Gardener-, the defendant (myself) put in a set-off of |6 ss, being for goods supplied to Armstrong's man, Armstrong agreeing to bo responsible, but which the R.M. overruled on the ground that the goods being ordered through his man was not lawful; although it was clearly proved that the plaintiff agreed to be responsible. The R.M. remarked that men in business shquk] npt supply goods unless by written agreement Qr:jjy'a/mast§rjs wrjit'en order. I might at§q meijtioiVtlidt'niy Counsel'was " siok," othovwisQ probably the tables would have been turned, • ' ' • ■ Yours &c, • G. M. Gardener. Carterton, Aug, 18.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WDT18810819.2.8
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 850, 19 August 1881, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
119AN EXPLANATION. Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 850, 19 August 1881, Page 2
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