RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.
Tuesday, Max 31. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E. M.) London v. Law and Company.— Claim for £l7 7s lid. Judgment for plaintiff, by consent, in amount claimed and costs. Same v. Keller.—Claim for £4 12s lOd. Judgment for plaintiff, by default, in amount claimed and costs. Same v. Leming.—Claim for £3 Is 3d. Judgment for plaintiff, by default in amount claimed and costs. Same v. Angus.—Claim for £3 13s. Judgment for plaintiff, by consent, in amount claimed and costs. Same v. Graisey.—Claim for £6 19s lid. Judgment for plaintiff, by consent, in amount claimed and costs. To be paid by weekly instalments of 15s. Sibree v. Tottingham.—Claim for £3 12s. Plaintiff sought to recover the above sum, being amount due for the removal and erection of a building. Defendant's wife appeared, and stated that plaintiff had failed to carry out the agreement. It was understood that Sibree was to move the building and find a suitable piece of ground on which to erect the same. The ground, plaintiff had selected, was the property of an absentee, and the claim was therefore disputed. Plaintiff nonsuited.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WEST18700602.2.12
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 666, 2 June 1870, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
187RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT. Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 666, 2 June 1870, 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