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

S.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-THURSDAV. (Before Mr T. Hutchison, S.M) C. Wagland v. Jos. Wcstbrook.— Claim, £43s lOd. Judgment by default-. Mr Beard for plaintiff. C. Smith and Co. v. Tlios. Niclioll. —Claim, £llos odd for goods supplied. Judgment by default. J. B. Koith v. F. Saxon.—Claim, £27 lis lOd, claim due on two promissory notes, Judgment by default. Mr Bunny for the plaintiff. Borough Council v. Tlios. Parsons. —Claim, £l2lßs 2d, overdue rates. Judgment by default. W.F.C.A. v. W. Corlett, -Claim, £6 Id, balance of account due. Judgment for plaintiffs for amount claimed and costs, Mr Bunny for plaintiffs. J. Mandel v. Edgar JonesClaim, £25 6s Id, amount due on dishonored promissory note. Judgment for amount claimed. Mr I'ownall for plaintiff. C. Smith and Co. v. Chas. Tom.— Claim, £6 10s odd, Judgment for plaintiffs, the claim to be paid , within a month. Mr Beard for ■L plaintiff. ™ C. H. Payne v. AV. Hounslow. Claim—Balance due on completion of painting defendant's house, a portion of which work was stated to be unauthorised by the defendant. MrPownall for plaintiff and Mr Beard for the defendant. Evidence of several witnesses for plaintiff was given, and the evidence of several witnesses for the defence, taken in Wellington, was put in. Evidence for the plaintiff, was to (he effect that the defendant had] given instructions to the plaintiff, after completion of painting certain newly-erected additions, for the old portion of the house to be painted as well. The evidence for the defence, was in direct contradiction of the above, no authority having been given to the plaintiff to do t-lia painting ou the old portion of the house, and which was done without the defendant's knowledge or consent, and at the contractor's own risk. Tho painting n of the additions was done by the » plaintiff, for the contractor, Mr T, B. Mitchell, from whom he was to receive payment. Plaintiff, when fold that the work was not authorised and lie would not, therefore, receive anything for it, roplicd, " Oh, that's all right; I'll get it some day." His Worship gave judgment for tho amount of balance claimed.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WDT18950214.2.19

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XVI, Issue 4941, 14 February 1895, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
352

S.M. COURT. Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XVI, Issue 4941, 14 February 1895, Page 3

S.M. COURT. Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XVI, Issue 4941, 14 February 1895, 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