SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 622, 27 September 1909, Page 11

SUPREME COURT.

'©^iP,WWt™ ; PROFITS.' ■ :■: ;■ Eesbrvod. judgment in 'ft case on appeal' from ; th««ttebision oiYlJr. M'Arthur, S.M., which :';-.■; «bcbpied':thaS".C6ttrt for two days last month, .-K : .vW:.delWefed ,&y. : Mr.';.irußtico'.Cbapman in'.tho > Supremo .Court-on .Saturday nibrning. Bavid :. :.;.Hppe,:';Johnston,, Bottlor,'formerly of vWelling- '.;; the,.;,Coiirt belotf), appealed .:.fro'in', the decision giving/judgment against him //V.biiia!(Skim pi JSSO,-:for,tlio';-rotufn'ot' a deposit :i„ p'»idt?bn; ai agreement;■ for,'-tharpurchase 'of the ■'Wellington';'l)airy. Company, .-: /'Ltd.'f (defendants);- ,'l'hbso'members'of the .c0m- .;.., - Albert Jolly,-. Jolm' George Wil- ;•■..•; sbiuYarid': Cecil Grevilio" 'Jtlorhe—who were, inv i.cludedras defendants inv'tho Magistrate's Court ~;!;- and:judgr ..••£■' niehtihttd'been given, in.th'oir favour for 410.. ;*s '•MpbVcasb wascargucd^by^MrV- 1 pray • for.- ap;.;.;peliaiit,vllr. VBr'oraL.for.jesponilent Horne, and .>-.'. Mr J> Blair, for (respondents J oily and; Wilson. . ■':;:•'.< .;; ffiatvthe;action''.had ■bebn :de?ided'Jn; 1907.--Vl'lie , :'•■ > cbmpa'ny, .was'' registered ;:as 'a .private company, ■;.mtllja. three'de■Vfmdafits.holcling'lOOO: shares'of £1 each.: iThey •;.;■' vVStei-all: directorsV-and :thorbS'..w6ro,' no other. '^'■ ! .sliareholderß." JollyLoiid"Wilson...verb not dis- ;,;;. satUfif d',■with the .business;'-.which gavo. them '.!; taenia'..salary,,-, as'.lweU' asY-profit's,',-.. but' they .:;.vvwfilhM;;to :go..tb''E]iglandi\\They;'placed ; their [:■. iil ( ferests';in the'ha'nds : of ■-Charles;:Pratt, comfor.:sale I :at;.£looo,:each....When heard-that. asalo'to' Johnston had been'. i-eEpcteiUhe. placed :hisv;Jnterbsti :'in 'Piatt's . ;;;■ hijnds: at XSOO, : not ''caring '■ to 1 go' ..into \ business : '"''SJwß:%:strange'r.'.v{As- ; .con-" i'.-. > / tempqraheous sbargaia'.'for.' the". ; p'urchaso: of: the ;'-,': .;the.shares from':Homo,: ho had, in ef- <;: ,'feot,',jjictiuired 'power/over" the .O'whbldAthiiig, possibly' without'having v a -per-; ;';■!' fectiy,-clear ..conception: of - tSo , exact legal con- : ..;-; BtltUtion~ofi,tho company. l , Appellant's'- claim; ;:-BisrepreS6ntetion',;''alid-,was/.'an- ':■' a P^^jpn..facts'aid-.l.aw. 'From.'.the first the. ;-;->'-resp&dentS''Wilson;iald/':'JoUy,;'w«b';willing;to ..." reßCind.:tha.bargains-hut. did. not see: their, way ... tp4hahd. 7 bftckto the appellant tho.iCoO..which ; :ho^had.'pnid■ to Pratt.:-The■'latter had taken ■ .•',;• ifeaS'agents generally took;a"deposit :'when■ they; ■':'■■ "' JbuidVget onei: arid;the .respondents' said that ::;;::ho;hhd3rotaiued it'bn:accouiit',:of,his .claim.for ..>:icomifiiSsion. ) There; was: no pretence -that any ...misrepresentations worb mado. ; :by,Horhe.' The complaint was that Jolly' .", tajjd ,/yyilson had. "overstated ' the value of the -;. business; 6ayirig:that .they drew jGiO.per month. ; each;,sahd'had additional dividends .at other', -.::.tmies;tthat_;Wilson..had\£3,lss..a'weekr-and aK6)ise;with. gas','coal.milk, and butter, nnd.that ■'•' •■■'ifjw:'*? 3 '''* 3 ' 10s->.weei, with butter and milk i'lirM.iVjAppellant stated r that he was told.verb- .;:.;.- ally -.that they :drew i26.a month, in. addition' ■": ..to-then* .wages.; There' had'riot been- anaudit, ,;;:;andrilthough appellant .stipulated for- a' right ;: : , ;td;i'ilisist on one he'was hot inclined to;go, to ': , the/,expense entailed' by such a: proceeding.:' ln ■ ( .'.! August>-190C, Barr.'leary,-and Co.raccountants,- > .stateiV'.that. up to, November, -1005, the -three .;,, partners'had ;been tlrawiiig lonian nverage'i£2o ; ypprSmonth ,eaoh,".while -Wilson and Jolly, had :...ft;»C.e i week'eaeli'.'No-,.V:..thingshad-been: drawn -since -.-November, but ':... credit v;ih:\.the / bank: ,; To :;.';niakeJotit;.:his f case,'.'appellant;must prove' that :, .':';th6ibusiness;;was ttot-as represented, v and.in' : ,\-. ; , wholly';failed.;v'On'.the..counter-' ; .: : :clailns;; s the Magistrate had -awarded 'generally f'.to^.tho Respondents;ailO'damages. ■;If there was, .;,'' any •'liability - to '-'-Pratt, some ■'damages were .V ; .;ctcarly f recover'able. '..His: Honour; could not say : ;-'. th'at.jPratt had'.-nb.claimj'. nor; couldf he jiro-: ■ : ,HC;Unc'eitho Magistratei.wrohg in>'awarding"damV '.;ages :|bii: a; scalb. very:';inucli bolow what could '':■'■ :.-•; "MP. 'been. recovered .-'had 'Pratt' ".-:-,:i6Mflcv;',iot' his, fulircommission ?bn|.the : agreed ;;':.,. wrts;tf af- ;. •jnrmsdji'anditho appeal 'dismissed,; with -three ; -' •■ ;e,t?: of {.costs j-iTo , the, company,' four jguiheas; : i ■:'. S,i! To »y and Wilson,' eightv guineas: : ' i: andft to ■; :ytfi»ne, ! -v. v : v,'. Judgment: ina" "recent iWaiigahui: divorce' suit i;;:'. .rfas>delivered ' by--Mr,-;JbsticeVi Chapman .on■' :':■ 'Saturday.,,;Whcn -the;case ; was ieard-.Mr.-.W-il-'. ' v-f?*?/, appeared for -the-petitioner,-'-Nellio; Mora; ; 'and ;Mr.' iTreadwell; foft'-Lthe ~cie,': . >;■:. eJßhdent,;;Edward-Kobertsoni'-:: ;The petition'for' i'-;,-.divorce ;was on the; ground''of/desertioh'iiv ! ..:;i> r ; ; > said that ho'could'notifind;that- \ ■;.: the;/respondent ;hnd:;broken ■ any legal 'duty to- '':■ *Eetitiorier,-?unleS3 'she ;■ had been forced ' •'.". 'tp.-i«fe her .home; and he" could' not: say, in' ::\',-;thp,;.faco,:Of ; the- evidence,- i that;lßhß'"-liad : ".b"een : '' :V.- : t%?.w(,t0.d0-80V:Be3pbn'dent'w'8i.Mi''.lndustrious ;.;.;irianf:-and ; had..beett:.in. uninterrupted'.employ- ';'-': m fffe f(ir -s'Bhpeniyears^i'He^had' .v::;,cotog.f>':at. < 'Castlecliff,,.Und: nearly,.jiaid'for" ;'t jiart:-of thb cost hadcbm'e' .v'^^'.sbe. savings;bf his -wages,■■'.-whioh' ; v.:.: 6rt--;vper;-day;.;.;A.'considerable.'portion'of the ''?.'^?J k ; ; P f - erettirig' them'.had' been done -by him-' 5? s^ a till; .;,. ,-inianiglit. •■-,, -This.did.not- leave "room ::fori es- , •ceessiy6j;drinki|jg^.'Petitiobor's ,-c^se •'.!-••: -tirely, ffailed/f and vthe; petition-'.'would, be' dis-