We have a planned outage this weekend. Papers Past, AtoJs Online, Natlib, He Tohu, Te Puna Foundation, and DigitalNZ (including the API) will all be impacted from 5pm Saturday 24 (NZST) to midday Sunday 25. Papers Past will remain mostly available through this time, so please feel free to use the site, but you might see a few things (like search settings or language selection) behaving differently to normal around the outage period. Things will be back to normal on Sunday afternoon.×
At the Magistrate's Court this morning Mr W. A. Barton, S.M;, gave his reserved judgment m the case of Axel Jarlov (Mr Dawson) v. Peacocke and Co, Ltd (Mr Burnard), a claim for £105 damages in' respect of a timber' 'cutting contract. His Worship said the contention on behalf of defendant was that although the; agreement provided that the plaintiff should cut at the average rate of. 4000 to 5000 feet per day, there was no obligation on the part of the defendant to supply suflicient logs to enable plaintiff to cany out his part of tho agreement. This was most unreasonable, and there was no doubt whatever •that -the -clear intention between the parties was that the defendants should supply the plaintiff with suflicient logs to enable him to cut timber at the average va to provided by the agreement, which the defendants failed to do, with the result that plaintiff had suffered loss, •which his Worship assessed at £38. Regarding (defendant's counter-claim for £127, for damages caused by plaintiff's alleged negligence m carrying out the contract, his Worship said -lie was unable to believe that had the plaintiff neglected the plant arid machinery to the extent indicated defendants would have employed him at the same work again: Mr Peacocke visited the mill almost daily, and it would be unreasonable to believe that had it been m the condition stated defendants would have permitted it to continue without complaints- His Worship -was satisfied no serious complaint was made against the plaintiff until after the commencement of theorlginal action., There. were, however, some items m the ciounter-claim which defendants were entitled to recover. Judgment was entered
for plaintiff m the original action for £33 less £17 17s 6d. allowed on the counter-claim, with costs amounting to £7 2s. _^_____^^^^^^^^__^_
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.
Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.
These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.
Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.
Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.
Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.
Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.
Print, save, zoom in and more.
If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.
The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.