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

CIVIL BUSINESS.

(Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.)

Judgment for plaintiff by default of defendant was given"in the following undefended cases:—W. Littlcjohn and Son v. Alfred Gooigo East, £32 10s., costs £2 45.; William Archibald Parton v. Frederick Black Lidge. possession and rent £6 Is., costs £1 Bs. 6d.; H G. Anderson and Co. v. W. H. Smith, costs onlj 55.; New Zealand Flour Millers' Co-operative Association, Ltd., v. Leonard Clough, £51 19s. Gd., costs £3 15s. Pd.; Kirkcaldie and Stains, Ltd., v. Madam Tutschka, £18 Bs., costs £1 10s. Gd.; the samo v. William Hutchinson, £2 17s. lid., cost 3 10s.; Joseph Nathan and Co. v. J. M'Donald, £19 6s. 4d., costs £1 10s. Gd.; Wellington Publishing Company, Ltd., V. William George Chartres, 145., costs 55.; tlio samo v. William Aislabie, £7 135., costs Bs. j David Nield v. William W. Herbert, 15s. 5d., costs os.; New Zealand Fruit and Produoe Company, Ltd., v. Jno. Chong, £11 10s.,,costs £1 10s. 6d.; E. Reynolds and Co., Ltd.,' v. William M. Easthope, £21 165., cost3'£2 145.; the same v. P. B. Valpy, £26 12s. Bd.; costs £2 14s. '

1 , JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.' j ,'His Worship made no order in each of the following judgment summons cases:—William F. Newson v l . Thomas Tyree, a debt of £7 Is. 6d.; Floieuco Grace Waul v. Percy John Kolly, £5 55.; "The New Zealand Times" Company, Ltd.,* v. T. Tyree, £4 10s.; A. Cocks and Co., Ltd., v. Judah I Barslrs, -C 35 ?s.

I CL'AIM ON A BDILDING CONTRACT. , His Worship, Dr. M'Arthur, delivered hib ! reserved decision in the case of Alexander Bell and John 801 lv. G. H. Sample, a claim for £197 10s. Bd. The_ statement of claim set out that tho plaintiffs had contracted to erect a house for tho defendant at Hataitai, in accordance with certain plans and,specifications, for tlio sum of £897 10s. Tho plaintiffs erected tho houso and completed 'it, according to tho provisions of the contract. The defendant made several payments to tho plaintiffs, but there remained a balance of £197 10s. V.., for which the plaintiffs claimod. After tho plaintiffs' case had been taken, Mr. Blaii, for tho defence, raised a nonsuit point that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover anything until their contract was absolutely completed 'His Worship did not allow this nonsuit, thinking that there was a case to answer. Further, the recent case of F. Dutton v. Brcdn, now ropoitod in 'G.L.R., p. 659 (decided by Mr. Justice Sim), was not then before him.

:i, : therefore: considered the dehad.''put.ihl in '.writ-; .ing.vVHe'. had'■;'■ relied; on ,four'-points."-T'-His-first/point was -with.regard'to,-the'alteration' •made:;;by'.''the 1 plaintiffs :;in';the -'site'■■■ of rbbilding.'v Plaintiffs-had said^thatthis,altoro ; . -Hon\was, 'made', on • thb',authority.-Y-of i'Mrs.' iSam'p'lej;/:but", ; Ji^ i Sample's '/denial/that: sUb-ib'ad over given any. ludfilfdirectiom' Even;: if elie-'.'had-.done- "so,' :the .plaintiffs-should not have/carried out : ; suchv;iristruction3'. : unless .authorised in writ- 1 ing: by -vfchis '.of the' wojk'.t'iiv';-the; architects'.;." Blair's' 'second.-.contention .was/that-the;plaintiffs' could hot: rccoyer'.uri- ; der;,the 'contract..until-they had produced the .'inspector's , Certificate,, .which tliex had ■not received. ';: His Worship, upheld thfscbh-t-entioni/ The 'third point wasthat'tho.plain--tif(sy>whenfthe .matter' was in;;dispute,;slibul<r .tiave'ireferred it to]arbitration,;.as;.provided ;for .in :the';c6ntrect.VF(n - '.his;; fourth' point,: Mr.,'..Blair ; -Mlied of ;MK ''Justice .V.■..81•0en, , wlrere. itv.M'a's-.held .that': : >vhere'." : there'-.is' ; .'acontract ■fo'r^thoiexecution.bf: ; .tho';,whole-w6rk of fa.uikl,;ing; ;a : ;'hp.use.^ Icontractiv.' and i : the,- :contfact6ri '.is -' not'--- :'oh-. titled ]fbo Ji'recovcr; anything.' : ini'.rwpeet :M>' it | work,has'.-boenVdonoV,6r;.'uii-1 -less; : it;was'.throughUhb' default party.; tna't..thc.'ivork xvas .'not or. .unlessiit; is,;showh?'that.'there, is: aJre'eli .coil-- 1 ;tracti;for, payrneht .for tlia' work- .aottiiilly. the: decision''in: tue'oasp'Duttbn v. Btceri was binding in';'the. ;'oase n : t!\y;befprß'-him;--and plaintiffs wel-o' not; entitled : -to frecover /any part .of 'their present .'claim., '.'Judgment',would; therefore b'c ■for.th6'-!.defcridant,;.wil,h' costs' £17,,85; ..Each : bf..the ordered to:pay,'£3/35.-to tlie.expert, who h'adgono throuch: the;speci,.;fic.ation'a';'an'd 'examined;',the buildiiiK, whilo .'defendant : was ',ordered.- to. pay £1 Is.;;to; a 'handwriting who had,been .'called.':,; ;': :Mr.-; ; -Johnston : appearcd:on : :bohalf ofHbe-plaintiffs".' / -; : >,-:,-: i,'■';■''; V'V- •.': ; '■';.-'.

A QUESTION OF

(Before Mr. W G Riddell, S M )

A claim for commission was preferred by Georgo Bradley (Mr Toogood) against James Walker (Mr., O'Loary) Plaintiff stated that, through hi 3 agency, defendant sold a boiler to a third party for the sum of £37 10s , and he therefore sued for £3 15s commission. His "Worship nonsuited plaintiff with costs £1 Is. *

FROM THE SUPREME COURT

Argument was heard relative to the case of Joseph Woolfo (Mr. Johnston) v Aaron Samuel, and William George Gray (trading as the Wholesale Woollen Company), and Iteming Ross, receiver (Mr. Levi). Ihia was a case in which an appeal to the Supreme Court had been upheld m favour of plaintiff, and the case had been returned to the Magistrate's Court for the assessment of damages for wrongful dismissal Attor hearing argument, his Worship intimated that ho would give his decision on August 26.

A PROMISSORY NOTE. ''Reserved decision was delivered by his Worship Mr. W. G. Riddell in tho case of Chailes Pratt and Co (Mr. Dunn) v. Hannah M'Alley (Mr. Lovveyj. Plaintiff claimed trom defendant tho sum of £20, amount of a promissory note, and 4s interest, alleged to be duo Counsel for defendant argued that the piomissory note had been givon for a debt owing by defendant's husband, who Vfts an uiulisch.u god bankrupt, and thcretom it had beep given for no consideration, and was invalid. Plaintiff was nonsuited with costs £2 4s.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19090825.2.97.5

Bibliographic details

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 595, 25 August 1909, Page 11

Word Count
874

CIVIL BUSINESS. Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 595, 25 August 1909, Page 11

CIVIL BUSINESS. Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 595, 25 August 1909, Page 11

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