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
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Supreme Court CIVIL CLAIM DISMISSED

Painting Contract Dispute

An appeal against a Magistrate’s decision awarding £3O to Hutchinson Motors, Ltd., against J. J. Farm, Ltd., of Ellesmere, was dismissed by Mr Justice Haslam in the Supreme Court yesterday.

Mr D. I. N. McLean, for J. J. Farm, Ltd., said the civil claim arose from a contract between the parties for Hutchinson Motors, Ltd., to paint a van for £45 and make a first-class job of it.

Hutchinson Motors asked J. J. Farm, Ltd., to pay the £45 bill and J. J. Farm refused. Hutchinson Motors thereupon issued a judgment summons for the £45. The Magistrate found, said counsel, that the work done was not first-class. He gave judgment for Hutchinson Motors, Ltd., for £3O.

Counsel submitted that, in a contract for a lump sum, Hutchinson Motors, Ltd., could not recover anything unless the work performed had amounted to a substantial part of the contract. Expert evidence for J. J. Farm, Ltd., was that it would cost £39 to repaint the vehicle to make it the first-class job required on the contract.

Mr R. S. D. Twyneham. for Hutchinson Motors, Ltd., submitted that the Magistrate’s decision was correct, on the facts and in law.

Counsel said that Hutchinson Motors, Ltd., had issued a judgment summons for £417 5s against J. J. Farm, Ltd., £45 for the painting and the remainder for extensive engine repairs to the van- because J. J. Farm, Ltd., had refused to pay for any of the work.

Counsel said that Hutchinson the van was finished in January, but the first complaint about the job was not received until March. On April 9 the first specific complaints were received and the foreman of Hutchinson Motors, Ltd., paintshop told J. J. Farm. Ltd., to bring the van and three of the four faults alleged would be attended to.

Counsel submitted that the faults alleged did not go to the root of the contract and that therefore the Magistrate was properly entitled to award J. J, Farm, Ltd., compensation after he had found that the job was not a first-class one as stipulated in the contract.

His Honour said that, on the facts, the Magistrate had reached a proper conclusion. He had held that the work done by Hutchinson Motors, Ltd., was by no means a valueless performance. After inspecting the vehicle and hearing the witnesses for both parties, the Magistrate had. in effect, decided by what margin the job was short of bring first-class and how much compensation J. J. Farm, Ltd., should receive.

His Honour awarded £4 4s costs against J. J. Farm, Ltd.

Divorce Petition Part Heard

A petition for a judicial separation in divorce by Constance Mary Drayton from Charles Edward Drayton, on the ground of his adultery with Kathleen Mary Toogood, named as the woman entitled to intervene, was begun before Mr Justice Macarthur in the Supreme Court yesterday. Mr G. S. Brockett appeared for the petitioner and Mr B. J. Drake for the respondent The petitioner alleged that respondent bad committed adultery with Toogood during SeptemberOctober and November-December, 1956.

At the conclusion of the case for the petitioner. Mr Drake submitted that the evidence adduced was not ot the standard of proof required to prove adultery and asked that the petition be dismissed. Mr Brockett opposed the application.

His Honour said he was not prepared to dismiss the petition because, in his view, if the evidence rested at that stage there was sufficient proof of adultery in the suit. Evidence was bring given for the respondent when the Court adjourned until today.

STOREKEEPER MADE BANKRUPT A. W. Sirett, a storekeeper, of 82 Estuary road, was adjudged bankrupt by Mr Justice Haslam in the Supreme Court yesterday. The order to have Sirett judged bankrupt was sought by R. W. Sharp (Wholesale), Ltd., a creditor. Arthur Tom Winston Sharp, a director of the petitioning creditor, gave evidence that a judgment order for £lO9 15s 8d had been made in favour of hi* firm against Sirett on June L 1960. Sirett had paid nothing since th»t order was made.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19600922.2.230

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29316, 22 September 1960, Page 21

Word Count
682

Supreme Court CIVIL CLAIM DISMISSED Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29316, 22 September 1960, Page 21

Supreme Court CIVIL CLAIM DISMISSED Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29316, 22 September 1960, Page 21

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