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

SUPREME COURT.

WANGANUI SESSIONS, ■ SATURDAY AFTERNOON’S BUSINESS. JUDGE EDWARDS ,ON" THE, BENCH. The Supreme Court sessions were coiiuuu&d -alter' we went tc, press on Saturday/ afternoon: :/ ‘ CIVIL BUSINESS. A. EVETTS v. H. W. DICKIE. In this action Mrs Duetts (Mr Mac-kay)-'"•sued. H. W. Dickie for £IOO damages for trespess. The plaintiff was the tenajit of the defendant’s house.- Defendant washing to re-build, gave her a week’s’notice to quit, and -at the end Of the week pulled down two chimneys and the verandah of the zhouse. .;’ Mrs Eve.tts claimed that she’ was entitled fo^a/mouth's notice, and sued the de fehdant for damages for interfering with,the house before the month was up. ■ : V ,s , The' following jury of four heard the case:—Messrs H. A. Temperton (foreman), N. Miller, D. Corby, and 6. Aldridge. ; • ” Considerable evidence was < heard, and' the following issues vtere' put to the jury arid replied to by them- after a briyeU retirement;— "’ 1. Did the plaintiff hold under a special agreement as to the duration of the tenancy; and if so/' what was. that ■ special agreement?-—tf? special agreement. . ’ ' ' 2. Did ‘the; plaintiff give permission to-the defendant to pull, down the chimneys and verandah, or any pare of them? -No. .I-:--

, 3.? Was the tenancy properly determined?-^^. 4. What .damages, if any,, is the plaintiff, entitled to: (a‘ In respect ip the first-cause of action?—£l,o.... (b) In respect to the second cause of action?,—£lo. (c) In respect to the third cause of action?—£2o. (d) In respect to the fourth cause of action ? —£lo. ' His Honor gave judgment for £SO with costs, according to scale. In DIVORCE./. ; , : . ./ : EVETTS v. EVETTS. This was a wife’s, petition- for di-vorce-on the ground of cruelty, drunkenness,- and*-failure- to maintain. Mr Mackay appeared for the petitioner. After hearing 1 evidence his Honor granted a decree nisi. TANSEY v. TANSEY. This was an application to make a -decree nisi absolute. Mr Treadwell appeared for tlie petitioner, and the decree was made absolute as requested

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WH19140601.2.52

Bibliographic details

Wanganui Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 14307, 1 June 1914, Page 6

Word Count
327

SUPREME COURT. Wanganui Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 14307, 1 June 1914, Page 6

SUPREME COURT. Wanganui Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 14307, 1 June 1914, Page 6

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