LAW AND POLICE.
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.Tiiorsday. [Before R. C. Barstow, Esq., R.M.] The ordinary weekly sitting of tho Court to hear and determine small debt claims was held this morning, and the following business disposed of :— Judgment for Plaintiff.—James J. Elkington v. Spendley S. N. Mackie, £'1G Ss; Robert Hampton v. Charles Clarke, £G 10s ; Progress Gold Mining Company v. Philip Huntsman, } Gd; Graves Aickiu v. Thomas Adair, £G 12s; J. Cosgrave and Co. v. Henry Hayden, £10 ; Isaac Phillips v. Jacob Ornstein, £3 ss; H. L. Poaseneskie v. John P. Nielson. £5 ; Union '< Beach Gold Mining Company v. Philip Huntsman, J&7 18s; Auckland Gold Mining Corn- 1 pany v. Douglas Kent, £3 9s lOd. i Adjourned.—Alexander Wright v. James I Dempsey, £34 (penalty) for a fortnight; E. 1 Porter and Co. v. James McLellan, £1(5 Is Sd; ' William Miller v. Neville S. Walker, £50; G. T. Hogg v. W. W. Taylor, £i 5s Bd. Aickin v. Adair.—Mr. Cooper for the plaintiff. The Clerk of the Court; The defendant has gone to Sydney by the Hero. Mr. Cooper : We should like to have the judgment of the Court nevertheless. Matxahd t. Wriglet.—Claim £2. Mr. ' Cooper for plaintiff; ftlr. J. Russell for defendant. The defendant was an architect, aoting for Mr. Dihvorth. The plaintiff is a house-painter. The contract was to paint a Q number of cottages, one being of a smaller size. But the one cottaje, according to plaintiff, was , twice as largo as tho ono he was to paint, aud this action w;is brought to recover for the extra work. Tho defendant referred plaintiff to Mr. Dilworth, who refused to recogniso tho claiji. The ground of action was that Mr. Wrigley said he would see the plaintiff paid. The defendaut, in his evidence, deposed that ho told the plaintiff that ono of the cottages in St. George's Bay was ho much out of repair that it was not worth painting. It was not to be painted. Witness was simply arclutoct in the matter. The tenders - were to Mr. Dilworth. Witness spoke to Mr. Dilworth on the subject. Mr. Dilworth said, if there had been a mistake, it was not his fault. Witness did not promise to pay plaintiff. His Worship said the legal maxim caveat emptor S with an alteration, caveat painter, would ap- , pear to apply to this case. If a man did what he was not required to do he could not expect to bo paid for it. Mr. Cooper : I will elect to c be nonsuited. Tho plaintiff said he could bring further evidence. Hall v. Cannf.—Claim, £34 7s 3d. Mr. J. Russell for the plaintiff; Mr. George for the defendant. In this case the defendant pleaded bankruptcy, having been discharged by the Supremo Court from his liabilities. But there was a contract subsisting at the time of filiug and discharge, that the plaintiff, who is a farmer at One-Tree Hill, should supply the defendant with as much milk as he wanted at lOd per gallon. The contract did not 1 appear to have terminated until after proceeding* in bankruptcy, and the question was raised whether the plaintiff could claim against tho defendant for a debt that was * " provable " under the bankruptcy. His Worship : That is just the question. The debt would hardly accrue until the completion of the contract. There would not, aB a matter of fact, ' be a debt at all until the contract was fulfilled. [ If that did not happen until after bankruptcy
proceedings, the defendant would be liable. I would have been better had the contract beei Is regarded as rescinded by the filing. The plain tiff, in reply to a, question from the Court, saic he did not know anything of bankruptcy pro ceedinga. His Worship said he would giv< 1 1 leave to the defendant to reduce the liability by so much as tho plaintiff might hav« n proved for against the bankrupt's estate. a Judgment for plaintiff, with leave reserved.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH18790307.2.29
Bibliographic details
New Zealand Herald, Volume XVI, Issue 5399, 7 March 1879, Page 3
Word Count
661LAW AND POLICE. New Zealand Herald, Volume XVI, Issue 5399, 7 March 1879, Page 3
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.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries and NZME.