,MfAi^.oq|jM|L "***

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XX, Issue 2323, 11 January 1893, Page 2

, Mf Ai^.oq|jM|L "***

< : Wednmday, Ja^abyljJlh. (Before 6. 0. KeWle»v^S!i^ J. E. Waeon^^^g Jna*DMn« B n u o mmo » a i The amount of oltitnT^ai £8 5s Bdi Defendant did -not appear. Amount to be paid within one week or defendant to be imprisoned for one month. Fairs and Co. v. Bioharde.— Claim for =619409. The only itemio^SSS^tt°J microscope (£14 10s) obtained by plaintiff for defendant at the. order ofWlatter, Plaintiffs case was tba£tne -microscope was ordered on plaintiffs description. It first it was ordered from Sydney, by defendant's teqaest, when -it could not be obtained, and then an order wa»«nk to London, also at defendantVrecraeft. It was delivered on the 20th Deoembe?: and 7^V^T o^\ waß ■"* a » wShnt returned the instrument on the irroand tbatitwas.wejesg. - ;, .*"' To MrjE^mn-Uinßnatkvnittoa order. Defendant spoke in coOTemtion of an order he had v^JSSSSZ Mr. Hawke, witness.'- predeceJsS., But this was an order from a catalogue «f Dr. Richard s, which witness hadmialftid. A Hartnaoinstrument was ordered Mr. Wallich was called as an expert. and gave evidence tbaf the ittfament was a very good one, and of tnormoai I magnifying power./ The leases tftreierv To Mr. Hmohison-rHad, iiob'tajU* instr^S. ÜBeß ' *•--■*•?»«

Mr. Hutchison moved for a iron-suit on £10 and there being no Writtenlrder «nd there having been no aofleoUnce th* Statute of Frauds preven^ffiff recovering. Further, that Jhe%tiele was n O t that wanß a i a Hm^EE

After heariog Mr. Hamerfoa in rftly The Court non-suiwd, prafoKff oVtbe guana that the particular instrument ordered-a Hartnac-had not bten obtained. It .was hard jopon ,Hr f ftriro that his agent in Londorshoalk have treated him in this way, failed tq«»d oat J^attaao, though it waffftlgely Nonsuited with dostari;' »., «/.