Lists (None yet)

Login to create lists

Tagged (None yet)

Add Tags

Comments (None yet)

Add New Comment

No corrections yet

ACTION AGAINST GOLDS

BROUGH, MORT, AND CO.

JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFEN-

DANTS.

LONDON, JUNE 20.

Judgment wns givon to day m tho Chancery Division of tho High Court of Justico m an action brought by tho North Australian Teintory Company against Goldsbrough, Mort, and Co Limited

Tho action was dismissed with costs

[Some live or six years ago a company was flouted ni London, under the style of the North Australian Territory Company, to ncquire nnd work certnin properties belong mg to Mr C B Fisher in the Northern Territory 'Ihcse properties were held as security by Messrs Goldsbrough, Mort, and Co for advances made to Mr C B 1 isher, After some time the North Australian '1 erntory Corapuny was liquidated, and sub sequent!} some members of it brought actions against a number of defendants, amongst w horn were Goldsbrough, Mort, and Co I he object of the action against Golds brough, Mort, and Co wns to rhow that the compinj were partners in the transaction with Mr C 11 Tisbec The plaintiffsolnmied certain dnmnges, but the judgment of Mr lusticc Hollier, who heard the case, goes to show til it Goldsbrough, Mort and Co were not partners but simply agents ]

[tiolilsbrougli, Mort, nnd Company Limited jestcrduy received a cable messuge from their London ollice advi9ing that judgment had been given in the. case brought ngiunst them nnd others bj tile Northern Terntorj Com pnnj Limited rl be telegram Bays -" ludg ment lins been uiven in the Northern lerntori case in Jnvour of Goldsbrough, Mort, und Company Limited, w ith costs ]

Zoom

plus
thumb
minus
left
thumb
right
up
thumb
down