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

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. OPERATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH WONDERLAND. OVEE JE2OOO INVOLVED. MIRAMAIi, LTD., AND GUARANTORS. In the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr. Jn,tire Edwards, there was heard tho ras.- of Ileathcote Uectham \Villi:im-, Dudley Bruce Hill. iin:l Artlnir Kpry (i«\u\is (.'i.rlyon. all of HawkpV j-iiiy, v. Jlirnmar. Ltd. This wn.s a claim fer spi'L-ific iwrforniniici!. Jlr. A. \V. Illair appeared i'ci- tho plaintiffs, and Mr. H. U. Bull. K.C., with him -Mr. C. 11. TiMiUvoll, for the defendant company. Plaintiffs (Williams, Hill, and Caib'tui) claimed that, by a deed dated March _ 21, 1908 (uid executed in consideration of their guarantee to an overdraft of £l<sti at the Bank of New South Wales fer the Miramar Athletic Park and Wonderland Company), the defendant company (Mirainar, Ltd.) had agreed that, if the punrantce were not discharged, they would, on March 31, 100!). allow the gnarantc-rs to remove the buildings and fixtures (other than the .fences) at Wonderland. In this event a certain contract to purchase between Mirainar, Ltd., and the Wonderland Company was to be terminated. Or. in the alternative, Mirainar, Ltd., would pay to plaintiffs the sum of .£2351 55., and take over the lands and building;, belonging to the Wonderland Company, and terminate tho agreement.

The Wonderland Company had purchased ssific .in acres from the defendant company (Mirainar, Ltd.), and had p-.iifl .£2351 5=., Init were in default with respect to further instalments and interest. By the terms of a deed Mirainar. Ltd.. lvui- aerc'-.i not to enforce thete payments until March 31, Iflfin. and plaintiffs alleged that, when that date arrived, an agreement had been made to defer' the matter still further, and that "ling negotiations took place without any agreement being arrived at. Thereupon nWntiffs (Williams, Hill, and Carlyon). in terms of tli3 agreement of 190S, called imon M'-ramar, Ltd., to p.iy the sum of In addition to denyinir several matters, Miramav, Ltd.. defended the action upon tin-" .ground that Williams Hill, and Carlyon had lost their right under tha fiuaro.ntf?. nnd. mr-i-mver. by certain conrfu'-t. had precluded themselves from making n.ny further claim. Counsel for plaintiffs had still on* witness to call when the hearing was adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning. MANDAMUS SOUGHT. MUST THE GENERAL MANAGER OF RAILWAYS CERTIFY'AS TO CONDUCT? .

An application for o. writ of mandamus to compel tlio General Manager of Railways to certify to the good conduct of an employee was" heard by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in Chambers on Monday afternoon. The parties to the action were Donald Wemj-fs Finlayson, railway porter, of Wellington, plaintiff, and Thomas. Bonavne, General Manager of Railways, defendant. Mr. W. H. D. Bell appeared for the plaintiff. Finlayson, and the So-licitor-General (Mr.- J. W. Salmond) for the defendant. .Evidence for (ho plaintiff Finlayson vrns to the effect that, between April, 1003. and July -I, 1000. he had .been employed as a, porter. Ho now asked that the of Bs. per dqy. Since (hen he luul acted as relieving, ginrd, but was still rated as a pm-trr. He now nskrd th?t the General M-mager of Itnilway.' te requested to certify cs to whether nr not his efii-cii-ncy and pood conduct Muring the perioil between April 1908 and 1010) lnd been sncli as to entitle him to receive certain increases in pay attaching to his position. For the defence it was contended that •other railway employees h.itl hail a claim to promotion prior to Finlayson, who, whenever employed as shunter, signalman, or guard, received Bs. Gd. per day; also ■fliot 'the defendant (Ilie General' Manager) had not the power to give the certificate rcfiuirecl. Decision was reserved. CASES FOR TO-DAY, To-day the Chief Justice will hear the case of 'Donald Fraser v. Winiatu Pataka, a suit, far specilic performance. Mr. Justice Edwards will bo occupied with the further bearing of the case of Williams and others v. JMiramar, Ltd., which began yesterday, and is reported above.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19110927.2.6

Bibliographic details

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1243, 27 September 1911, Page 3

Word Count
652

LAW REPORTS. Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1243, 27 September 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS. Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1243, 27 September 1911, 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