BREACH OF CONTRACT - Nathaniel Hope was charged by J. A. Campbell with having entered into a contract with Rachael Campbell to serve her as a labourer in the Cuyuni river, and having received the sum of $5, by way of advance, neglected to fulfill the same without reasonable cause. Defendant pleaded guilty, and stated that he was sick, in consequence of which he did not fulfill the contract. He was fined $15, or one month’s hard labour.
SOURCE: Belfield - before Mr. Horatio Read, S.M., Wednesday -The Daily Chronicle, Saturday, December 11, 1897:page 4.
What sort of man, perhaps 70 years of age would permit his 22 year old daughter to seek e gainful employed in the Gold district of the Cuyuni River in 1897? I believe I have a much lower level of respect for my great grandfather than I previously did… This is supposing this article is reference to my Campbell ancestors. Now, here is a man who donated land for the location of the Leper Asylum; who built a Church at Victoria Village; and who repaired St. Mary’s Church of Scotland at Jonestown Mahaica District. But who has the audacity to permit my grandmother to seek employment in the Cuyuni River basin. I was of the opinion only females with low moral values visited those regions or females who were going there with their husbands or mates. I guess I was wrong but I doubt it strongly.
MRS. REBECCA CAMPBELL V. S. A. CAMPBELL
In the matter of the motion by the defendant in the above matter, the acting chief Justice said that the Court was of the opinion that it ought to take evidence in order to ascertain whether a noncompliance by the mover with the order of the Court was wilful, in which case he would be in contempt, or whether he was simply unable to comply through of means. The matter would be taken tomorrow.
SOURCE: The Daily Chronicle, Thursday, December 16, 1897:page 3.
MRS. REBECCA CAMPBELL V. S. A. CAMPBELL
In the above matter, the defendant was examined as to his means to comply with the order of the Court, directing him that he should pay $30 per month as alimony to his wife in the suit for separation.
The defendant appeared in person, and Mr. Dargan, instructed by Mr. Cameron, appeared for Mrs. Campbell.
The defendant, in answer to questions put to him by Mr. Dargan, said that on the 17th March last he was ordered by the Court to pay $30 per month as alimony to his wife. He paid nothing when the order was made. When the Court fixed the amount of alimony, he was examined with respect to his salary and as to his means. From the date of the order up to the 1st of September last, he was in receipt of $86.89 as salary, but since his salary had been reduced to $84.89, which was due to his having to employ another assistant in his school.
When the first instalment became due he was not in a position to pay it because he had to pay the Building society the sum of $37.68. He petitioned the Court in April last for a Receiving Order. He was forced to become insolvent. When he was examined in the suit brought by his wife for judicial separation, he did not tell the Court that he was owing a sum of $660 on two promissory notes. He had made over his furniture to someone in October 1896. The furniture remained in his house up to the time he petitioned for a receiving Order. He was unable to pay his wife anything out of his salary for April as he was forced to borrow money on it to go into the Insolvency Court. By his insolvency he was relieved of the payment of the costs in the suit. The first payment made by him was on the 13th October last. He paid $60 then. It was on a judgment-summons. He offered that sum long before the Judge made the order. He was only able to pay his wife $18 per month.
By the Court: the statements contained in his motion paper were true and correct. It cost him $66.89 to support himself and son.
Their Honours then reserved decision.
SOURCE: The Daily Chronicle, Friday, December 17, 1897:page 3. with having entered into a contract with Rachael Campbell to serve her as a labourer in the Cuyuni river, and having received the sum of $5, by way of advance, neglected to fulfill the same without reasonable cause. Defendant pleaded guilty, and stated that he was sick, in consequence of which he did not fulfill the contract. He was fined $15, or one month’s hard labour.
SOURCE: Belfield - before Mr. Horatio Read, S.M., Wednesday -The Daily Chronicle, Saturday, December 11, 1897:page 4.
What sort of man, perhaps 70 years of age would permit his 22 year old daughter to seek e gainful employed in the Gold district of the Cuyuni River in 1897? I believe I have a much lower level of respect for my great grandfather than I previously did… This is supposing this article is reference to my Campbell ancestors. Now, here is a man who donated land for the location of the Leper Asylum; who built a Church at Victoria Village; and who repaired St. Mary’s Church of Scotland at Jonestown Mahaica District. But who has the audacity to permit my grandmother to seek employment in the Cuyuni River basin. I was of the opinion only females with low moral values visited those regions or females who were going there with their husbands or mates. I guess I was wrong but I doubt it strongly.
MRS. REBECCA CAMPBELL V. S. A. CAMPBELL
In the matter of the motion by the defendant in the above matter, the acting chief Justice said that the Court was of the opinion that it ought to take evidence in order to ascertain whether a noncompliance by the mover with the order of the Court was wilful, in which case he would be in contempt, or whether he was simply unable to comply through of means. The matter would be taken tomorrow.
SOURCE: The Daily Chronicle, Thursday, December 16, 1897:page 3.
MRS. REBECCA CAMPBELL V. S. A. CAMPBELL
In the above matter, the defendant was examined as to his means to comply with the order of the Court, directing him that he should pay $30 per month as alimony to his wife in the suit for separation.
The defendant appeared in person, and Mr. Dargan, instructed by Mr. Cameron, appeared for Mrs. Campbell.
The defendant, in answer to questions put to him by Mr. Dargan, said that on the 17th March last he was ordered by the Court to pay $30 per month as alimony to his wife. He paid nothing when the order was made. When the Court fixed the amount of alimony, he was examined with respect to his salary and as to his means. From the date of the order up to the 1st of September last, he was in receipt of $86.89 as salary, but since his salary had been reduced to $84.89, which was due to his having to employ another assistant in his school.
When the first instalment became due he was not in a position to pay it because he had to pay the Building society the sum of $37.68. He petitioned the Court in April last for a Receiving Order. He was forced to become insolvent. When he was examined in the suit brought by his wife for judicial separation, he did not tell the Court that he was owing a sum of $660 on two promissory notes. He had made over his furniture to someone in October 1896. The furniture remained in his house up to the time he petitioned for a receiving Order. He was unable to pay his wife anything out of his salary for April as he was forced to borrow money on it to go into the Insolvency Court. By his insolvency he was relieved of the payment of the costs in the suit. The first payment made by him was on the 13th October last. He paid $60 then. It was on a judgment-summons. He offered that sum long before the Judge made the order. He was only able to pay his wife $18 per month.
By the Court: the statements contained in his motion paper were true and correct. It cost him $66.89 to support himself and son.
Their Honours then reserved decision.
SOURCE: The Daily Chronicle, Friday, December 17, 1897:page 3.
Fact Sheet: USCIS Warns of Immigration Scams Targeting Haitian Applicants for Temporary Protected Status
-
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services warns Haitians applying for temporary protected status to be aware of immigration scams. It has established a websi...
8 hours ago
