GUTHRIE v. GILMOUR.
TO THE KPITOR. Sih,— As the report in your issue of last evening is, owing to its brevity, rather misleading, I should like space to explain what the decision actually was. The plaintiff sued me for the conversion of certain palings which I removed from the wharf. My defence was that I had bought the palings from the wharf through his agent (Mr Mcore), who desired the sale, and that I was quite justified in taking possession of them. The Magistrate preferred my evidence to Mr Moore's, and decided that I had bought the palings, and, although I was not justified in taking them forcibly, yet, as Mr Moore had afterwards delivered the balance of the palings to me, he had waived my objection to the way in which I obtained possession of the palings. The Magistrate, therefore, decided in my favor on this point, which was the only one in dispute in the case, there being no dispute as to the LI 9 which I had paid into Court. The Magistrate gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the Ll9 paid into Court, and allowed me costs of the case.—lam, etc., James Gilmouk. Dunedin, June 1.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18880601.2.16
Bibliographic details
Evening Star, Issue 7627, 1 June 1888, Page 2
Word Count
201GUTHRIE v. GILMOUR. Evening Star, Issue 7627, 1 June 1888, Page 2
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.
Log in