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

SUPREME COUItT JUDGMENTS.

Mr. Justice Richmond delivered several j judgments in the Supreme Court this morn- , ing. In the cose of Priest v. the Wellington , Road Board and Whitcman, a claim of .£2OO , as damaees for injuries received owing to i the defective condition of a road, His Honour , was of opinion that the accident was caused , through plaintiff's horse shying at n. stack of timber, and not owing to the condition of the surface of the road. The defendants were not responsible, and he therefore gave jndg- ( ment in their favour with costs on the lowest scale. Mr. Jellicoe waa for the plaintiff and Mr. Skerrett for the de- ' fendasts. The caf.e so far as it concerned ' the Boad Board, it will be remembered, was < paled out on the hearing of the case, as the ' Board was non-eiistent. ' In tho case of J. L. Morrison v. Johnston and Co., in which the plaintiff claimed £10 10s on account of a bos of goods -\ Rhipped by the s.s. Jubilee, his Honour held that the defendants were not liable, as their signature to the shipping note only referred < to shipping fees received. He therefore gave judgment in their favour, with £7 7s j costs. Mr. Jellicoe waa for the plaintiff, and Mr. Tripp for the defendants. In re the Wanganui Meat Company, in ] which one Peate had secured a judgment j summons against the company after it had ] been placed in liquidation, Hi 3 Honour ' allowed the order for the satisfaction of the ' summons, with .£2 2s costs, holding that ' Peate' b claim was entitled to priority over those of other creditors. A cross-summons j by the liquidators was dismissed with .£1 Is , costs. Mr. Tripp appeared on behalf of , Peate, and Mr. Gully was for the company , on the hearing of the case. - In regard to the case of M'Kay v. Staples ' and Co., in which the plaintiff claimed a , release of a mortgage under the Land Transfer Act, in the ordinary official form, ( it had been agreed by the parties when the cose was argued to accept a form of release discharging the plaintiff simply from principal and interest, and His Honour accord- 1 ingly made a deoree that the defendants i should execute a release in the form agreed \ npou, costs being allowed the plaintiff on -\ the lowest scale. Mr. Hutchison was for ] M'Kay, and Mr. Skerrett for Staples & Co. ] — — — — — — (

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP18920708.2.46

Bibliographic details

Evening Post, Volume XLIV, Issue 7, 8 July 1892, Page 3

Word Count
402

SUPREME COUItT JUDG-MENTS. Evening Post, Volume XLIV, Issue 7, 8 July 1892, Page 3

SUPREME COUItT JUDG-MENTS. Evening Post, Volume XLIV, Issue 7, 8 July 1892, 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