Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

APPEAL COURT DECISIONS.

THE KEMP MEMORIAL

[BY TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.} Wellington, Monday. Is the case of Frank Harris ami Co. versus Rora Hakaraia, the Appeal Court dismissed the appeal against the order for a now trial made by Mr. Justice Chapman, | but varied the judgment granting a new i trial by ordering judgment to be entered I for the respondent in the lower Court [ with cost..

The action to which the above telegram J refers was in connection with a jitatuc lof tho late Major Kemp, which Mrs. Hakaraia, his sister, ordered from Messrs. Frank Harris and Co. Tho company alleged that the price agreed upon was ; £1150, upon which £550 was paid, and i legal action was taken by it for the ; recovery of the balance. | Mrs. Hakaraia's defence to this claim ! was a denial that any such contract was entered into as alleged. She said that, originally, she had ordered a monument which was to cost £650, but that, when tho statue was finished, she refused to pay for it, and entered into a fresh contract, under which Harris and Co. were to re-erect the monument and replace the figure with a now one. When this had been completed, Mrs. Hakaraia said that she was 11 pay £1150 in full settlement At (lie same time that Harris's claim was heard, Mrs. Hakaraia counter-claimed for the return of £550 which she had handed over in part payment. The jury found in favour of Harris and Co., and, in subsequent litigation, a motion for a retrial was granted.

A HAMILTON ACTION

[IIT TELEGRAPH".— PRESS ASSOCIATION'.]

Wellington, Mot day.

The Appeal Court, in the case Huston v, Lovelock, removed from the Supremo Court at Hamilton for argument, decided that plaintiff was entitled to a decree for specific performance, and made an order remitting the case to tho Supreme Court, so that judgment for specific performance might be settled and entered there, and costs of action dealt with. Plaintiff was allowed costs of argument in the Appeal Court on the highest scale and as from a distance.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19140630.2.87

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 156, 30 June 1914, Page 8

Word Count
344

APPEAL COURT DECISIONS. New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 156, 30 June 1914, Page 8

APPEAL COURT DECISIONS. New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 156, 30 June 1914, Page 8