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

APPEAL COURT.

TWO DECISIONS GIVEN

WELLINGTON BOWLING CLUB - CASE.

CRY TELEGRAPH—PRESS ASSOCIATION. WELLINGTON, April 21. In the appeal case the Wellington Bowling Club v. J. D. Sievwright, the Appeal Court gave judgment tor the appellants without costs. This was an appeal by the Wellington Bowling Club against Judge Ostler’s decision in the case wherein J. D. Sievwright proceeded against- the club and obtained verdict, for wrongful expulsion from membership. Sievwright was in March, 1924, expelled from membership on the ground of misconduct over a dispute arising fropi the cutting off of a- leg of his trousers, and ending in a quarrel between him and another dub member. Sievwright, in the Supreme Court claimed a declaration that he was still a member, and that the purported expulsion was unlawful and void. He further claimed that the directors acted contrary to natural justice, and asked for an injunction and £25 damages. The judg*. held that expulsion was invalid, as there was not even a substantial compliance with the rules. An injunction was granted and £1 damages awarded, and this decision was appealed against.

A DEAL IN EGGS. WELLINGTON, April 21, In Clarke v. Wellington Pou'try Farmers’ Association, the appeal was allowed, with costs. This was a case in which S. Clarke and Company, merchants, v. the Wellington District Poultry Farmers’ Association, Ltd., appealed from the judgment of the Chief Justice. The amount involved is £284 19s 4d, which was found to be due for various supplies of eggs bv respondents to appellants on be ha ] I of a man named Gallichan. The issues were almost entirely questions of fact. Counsel for the appellants had, in the lower court, moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that there was no evidence to comply with section 6 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1908, lint the judge had held that there, was no question of law in the transaction, but that the facts ail established the liability’of tile. respondents, and gave judgment for the full amount claimed and costs.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HAWST19250421.2.61

Bibliographic details

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 21 April 1925, Page 7

Word Count
335

APPEAL COURT. Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 21 April 1925, Page 7

APPEAL COURT. Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 21 April 1925, Page 7

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