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

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Friday.

[Before Thomas lieckliam, Ksq., U.M.] The ordinary weekly sitting of this Court was held this morning, and the following business disposed of :— Undefended Cases for I'i.aintu'k).—J. B. Francis v. H. Wright, claim £5 13s (goods); McLaughlin v. Dawson, £14 18s (goods) ; R. Elley v. J. Breen, £8 Os lid (goods). The Luxury of Law (Coktello v. Woehall).—The claim in this casettfF-gjset down at £1 10s, but in strictness the difference between the parties was only us. Judgment was given for plaintiff upon' the evidence, which was wholly in his.fayour, but the expense imposed upon the plaintiff! by the result of the decision was £2 3s 6d, or nearly nine timds the amount of the sum due. The ia.cis were as follow :—The plaintiff had an •aero of green oats to sell, and the defendant' agreed .to buy them. Tba" plaintiff swore that tlie price agreed upon was at the rate of

£5 an acre for what the defendant would take. He only sold at that price, green food of the kind Belling at £6 and £7 the acre in Epsom, because he wanted the ground to put in a different crop. The defendant, however, said that the price was to have been at the rate of £4 10s. Nine chain and a-half of the crop were cut and carted away by the defendant. The defendant paid £3 15s into Court as the amount due from him to the plaintiff, in addition to 10s he had previously advanced on account. This reduced the' claim to the amount already stated. The defendant announced his intention of bringing a cross-action for a breach of contract, seeing that Costello had ploughed in some of the remainder of the acre, but Costello said the stuff was to have been carted away within three weeks or a month at the outside. It was more than five weeks before Worrall took the crop off. His Worship thought that if any one broke the contract it was the defendant himself, seeing that time was the essence of it. Judgment for plaintiff with costs.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH18740829.2.20

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Herald, Volume XI, Issue 3993, 29 August 1874, Page 3

Word Count
349

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Friday. New Zealand Herald, Volume XI, Issue 3993, 29 August 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Friday. New Zealand Herald, Volume XI, Issue 3993, 29 August 1874, 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