THE DREDGING CASE
(By Telegraph.-Press Association)
DUNEDIN, Friday
The case of Foley's Creek Extended Dredging Company v. Cutten Brothers and Faithful, claim £1000 damages for alleged misrepresentation, came to a conclusion in the Supreme Court this evening, when the special jury returned replies to , all the issues but the first, on which they were unable to agree, in favour of Cutten Brothers and Faithful. The first issue was: Did Cutten Brothers agree with Neill and others to report upon the gold-bearing qualities of the claim? Jury not agreed. They decided that Faithful was not instructed to do more than ascertain the suitability of the claim to be worked by a sluice box dredge. They found that Faithful honestly believed in the truth of the matters communicated by him to Cutten Brothers in his letter of report; that the ordinary meaning of Faith fill's letter wTas that he had either by himself, or servants, made an inspection, and obtained the results therein stated; and that Faithful did not write with the express intention of conveying the above meaning, but wrote negligently without considering the meaning that the words would convey.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19021011.2.59
Bibliographic details
Auckland Star, Volume XXXIII, Issue 242, 11 October 1902, Page 6
Word Count
189THE DREDGING CASE Auckland Star, Volume XXXIII, Issue 242, 11 October 1902, Page 6
Using This Item
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.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries.
Log in