R.M. COURT.
Monday, March 31st. (Before J. J. Turnbull, Esq., R.M.) M. IIEALY V. LE GROVE & GRANT. Claim L2O on a dishonored “ on demand’, promissory note. The latter defendant had confessed judgment. M. Healy deposed that the promissory note was brought to him by Le Grove and was still nnpaid. By Mr Sinclair—The promissory note was presented at the Bank about three weeks ago. The money was advanced in cash to pay wages. It was not arranged when the bill should be presented. Mr Le Grove dissolved partnership with Mr Grant about the middle of January, ISS3, and went away shortly after. I tried often enough to get payment from Mr Grant but I consented to let it lay over. I did not inform Mr Le Grove that I could not obtain payment. I did not know where he was. ft was advertised that Mr Grant would pay all liabilities. Mr Healy stated that when Mr Le Grove left he iuformed him that he held him jointly responsible for the payment of the note. Mr Sinclair thought that judgment should only go against Mr Grant having allowed so much time to elapse. Mr Rogers said that the lacks •« complained of were owing to Mr Le Grove himself. The Resident Magistrate gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs 2ls. Same v. Same —A similar claim for LSI. •Judgment for the plaiutitf.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MDTIM18840401.2.8
Bibliographic details
Marlborough Daily Times, Volume VI, Issue 1214, 1 April 1884, Page 2
Word Count
231R.M. COURT. Marlborough Daily Times, Volume VI, Issue 1214, 1 April 1884, 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