LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 626, 1 October 1909, Page 4

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. PARTNERS AND THEIR ACCOUNTS. A MASTERTON CYCLE FIRM. Mr. Justice Chapman heard yesterday ' two Cases iii which' Harold Sinclair and David Gardiner Brown, who had been in' business as cycle agents in Masterton under; tlie namo of ! Sinclair and Brown, appeared as defendants. The Cycle and Motor Supplies, Lid., claimed tho sum of .£37 iOs., and 13..Reynolds and Co., Ltd., claimed'£U3 14s. 4d. The amounts were alleged to bo debts incurred by defendants in their retail business, and represented dishonoured promissory notes and cheques. ■ . Mr., Hadfield appeared for the Cycle and Motor Supplies, Ltd., Mr. AV. H.- D. 801 l for E. lieyriolas and Co., Ltd., and Mr. Pownall, ot Masterton, for the defendant Brown. In regard to tho claim of tho Cycle and Motor Supplies,. Ltd., Mr. Hadfield said that thie plaintiff'company had supplied defendants with stock. On September 1 of last year, a partnership wa3 ontered into by Sinclair and Brown,. Sinclair having, previously conducted the businoss on his own account 1 . The Supplies Co. woTe'not mado cognisant of tho partnership at once, but learned of it about the end of September, • and the account of Sinclair was carried, on into th'a account, of Sinclair and Brown. . Goods were delivered to the firm up till April: of.-this - year,-' when the partnership was dissolved.- Wlion'. a : new partner camo. into 'ft', firm,...said.- Mr. Hadfield, and the original account .was carried into the. new, account,. it ■pas exceedingly difficult for tho now partner to evade liability, unless he were very -careful. Brown, considered that he was not liable for the amount Sinclair owed the Cycle Supplies Co., and that payments mado' after the partnership had been entered upon could not bo appropriated. to the original liability.- The' accounts, wore rendered monthly to tho firm ,of Sinclair and Brown, and . were carried. on as one account.' For that.reason Brown bad become liable.' Counsel contended that payments' made to tho wholesale firm after Sinclair and Brown', had . joined in business could be appropriated to pay off earlier items, incurred by Sinclair, while in business by himself. The -ovidence was to the, effect that.Leslie Ashcroft: Edwards,, manager ,of Uh6.; plaintiff, company, pressed the. firm for' payment, and a bill was given by Sinclair in, the name of Sinclair.and..Brown, ' '■ The'. other, plaintiffs, E. Roynolds . and Co., Ltd., stated that, they- were tho holders of three promissory: notes (JC4S os. 2d., ~45 7s. lid., and .£45 15s. 5d.),- and one cheque .(.£120), which had been dishonoured. , The defendants, had paid JQI2 9s. 2d. in reduction of tho • total amount owing by them. The amount owing "on March 31 last to the'plaintiff company in rospeel; of goods sold , and (lolivered to tho defendant Sinclair prior to tho commencement of the partnership and to the. firm, of Sinclair and Brown , was .£243 14s. : 4d. In his'outline of the, defence, Mr. Pownall said. that 'Brown had, not received any benefit whatever from, tho indebtedness, for which ho was now being sued. Sinclair, was. able to get Brown into' this indebtedness (the latter was quite unaware of it), and both plaintiffs appeared to have been unaware that there waß anything sinister about tho partnership. - '. Tho dofendant, Brown, deposed that he paid Sinclair «£SOO. for a half-share in tho business. It'was a growing district, and trade was good. As a matter of fact, -when the partnership was dissolved, the business shoved a profit. The .£SOO was paid to Sinclair to enablo him to cleAr. up .the whole.business, so that they might commence together on a sound basis.. ; Ho; trusted .his partner, and did not inquire as to the valuo, of . the-stock or; inspect the books; Sinclair assured him,'before he;decidcd to be a party to;, the partnership -.agreement;: that everything about the business was fair, honest, and; above-board. 'OjVitiiess added that' ho did not know anything abbut bookkccping,arid-Sin- ; clair attended . to, the accounts. > 'Ho'., himsolf took charge.of the workshop. gave the bills in his . presonce, ljut ho, understood that they : were given for goods supplied; to the firm of Sinclair... and • Brown,: arid he had not the slightest suspicion- that Sinclair's indebtedness' was incorporated. Later, when lie. put- ; the.. books of the firm in the. bands of-an, expert accountant, he learned .for the first timo that ;ho. was being charged with Sinclair's indebtedness. He then wrote.'to the plaintiffs saying that ho was prepared to recognise debts,'incurred' by the firm of Sinclair and Brown, but would not admit liability'for Sinclair's previous indebtedness. .He never expected to be made liable , for anything prior to>; .September *1; The' respective firms had' : been/paid what'lib' held wos due -to them 'Irotti 'the partnership.'. . 'i-Mr.'. Pownall' asked 'for l judgment- 'for ■ the' defendant in both cases, i: In order to be entitled to- succeed, 'plaintiff? -must jirovo 'something in the nature of"a'new : contract;tfn the admission of Browni into partnership.' > There must bo'something .to stooW'that'lie.recognised the debt or ontorcd into a.contract to ,p4y: it. - t After • further.''argumenti' his Horiouf \ re--; served his. decision. • : -

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M.) ■ ' ; -ALLEGED BURGLARY. A remand to Wednesday next was granted in the case of William Willis,_ charged with that, on September 28, . at Wellington, he did break'and enter the dwelling of William Donham, Walter Street, and steal therefrom two pocket-books: containing an ' engineer's certificate and'various testimonials. MAINTENANCE. ""• Alfred John Lacey, who had been ■ arrested in Auckland, was , charged with disobedience of-an' order for the payment of 15s. per week towards the maintenance of his wife, "The arrears amounted to JESO. On tho application, of Mr.' Hindmarsh, for. defendant, the base was adjourned until,' this morning. ■ ; ; ;■ . GRATE' CHARGES. >■ , Two chargos, of criminal aSsault. at Island Bay,. on August 7,,. were preferred ' against Thomas Verdon Cassidy, "an old white-haired man. On ithe of'. Chief: Dotectivo' Broberg a-remand , until Wednesday next was granted. Mr., Herdman. applied for . bail for accused, which was allowed, in -the sum of : jCSO and-one surety of .£>o. • ■•. - OTHER CASES. • A'plea-,of not guilty was entered ,byl: Susan IM'Laughliti,Charged- /with .-importuning. .Alter .-hearing.,the. evidence, '.his.;-. Worship' en-', .tered a conviction .and order to como up .forf ■sentence when called 'on, on 'condition that defendant iwent into .the Salvation Army : Home: and remained there for. a.period of six -months.; Th o first offenders . for drunkenness - were, each fined 55., aM one was convicted and discharged.- ; ; ' ' ' ■ - ' - 'CIYIIi BUSINESS. Jndgment for : plaintiff: by default of defendant was ' -entered in ; the' following civil bases:— Johnston ; and Co., Ltd. v." Thos. H. Naldbr, ',£8 2s. 7d.y .costs £1 8a: 6d; ,P. Hayman and Cp; v. T. H._ : Evans, and Son, .£22 95.,': costs ,£2' 165.; Sargood, Son and Bwen, Ltd. y.'David M. Watt ■ son; Xl 3 3s. 9d., costs £1 10s. 6dj The Commissioner of .Taxes v. Wm, M'Leod, .62 Os. lld., ; costs' 55.; Commercial Agency, Ltd; v. Edward . R..155c11,.£27,05. Bd., costs .£2 145.; WairaU: Vallad Gold Mining Co; v.. Wm.,Ninniss, .£lB, costs: iiriQs.6cL;. Townsend' and.Paul,; Ltd.v. James, HyJensen, .JB4 : 6s.'. 3d.,, costs 125.; : Chas. Begg. and. Co. v. Louisa Johnson, .£l6 10s., • costs, .£1 10s.. 6d.; Alexr. M'Meekan and Hy. iGeo. Clarke, as - assignee t of Aloxr. MTtfeekin'v. Hama To Ao, j£6 lOs. lld., costs ,<ei. Bs.. Gd.; Commercial Agency and ' 'Birig, Harris and Co. v. Thomas W. Wills, .£33 . 9s. 1d.,-costs £2 145.; John Edward Butler,, Ltd; v. : Albert -D. Tovoy, .£4 6s. 10d., costs ss. ; John Edward Butler, Lta. v. Francis G. Oldham, -CIO 4s. lid., costs 155.; Rosenberg and Co. v. Wm. V. Wfcaver, 7s.'; costs 55.; J. E. Jenkinwn v. J. A. Rodgors, £2 9s. Gd., costs 10s.; E. W. Mills and Co. v. Kichard O'Donnell, £! 75., costs . XI 13s. 6d.'; same v. Theo. L. Ralfe, £3 15s. od., costs 10s.; Federated Cooks and Stewards of New Zealand Industrial Union of Workers v. Wm. ' Faulstick, 145.-, costs 55.;. Rosenberg: and Co. v. Wm. H. (W. Duff, possession of chattels by October, in default -it 10s.,'.with costs Cs. - ; JUDGMENT .SUMMONSES. In the judgment summons case, "United Farmers' Co-operativo Association v. Henry Hurrell, a debt of JC3 Cs. 2d., defendant was ordered to pay oil or before October 26,' in default seven days' imprisonment; Robert Whiteman was ordered to pay £19 3s. Bd. to E. W. Mills and. Co.. Leforo October 14, in dofault 14 days' 1 imprisonment. . . ' , -DEFENDED CASES. •. - MONEI' .LKXT; -■ Mrs.' Elizabeth' Edmonds claimed .£26 from Fred. Riddehough, butcher,- money - alleged to hdiVO been lout on July 8, 1007. After hearing the ovldenoot his Worship entered judgment

for plaintiff fop claimed and costs 25.»-' Mr. O'Lt-ary appeared for plaintiff and Mr.' Hindraarsh for defcndnjit. • ' BEPAfBS I'o A • VAN, Lyons, Ltd.,: claimed i! 2 17s. 6d. from Mrs. Laura Bouiton, laundress, for repairs to a van. His Worship hold that tho plaintiffs must bb non-suited as tho evidence submitted by them was not sufficient to establish their claim.' Costs JCI Is. were allowed. Mr. Mao' hell appeared for plaintiffs and Mr.-P.' W. Jackson for defendant. . , . LANDLORD V. TENANT. Ihrvid Wilkinson, gardener,. Oriental Bay (Mr.' Weston), sued Hart Spear, eye specialist (Mr. Blair), for £5 2s. Cd.,.being damages alleged, to have been done to the plaintiff's house during the defendant's tenancy of it. There was'a claim-for 17s. Gil. for threo windows broken, and for another window which was broken and improperly set in, and which had to be reset; another for JC3 155., tho value of a number of . plants removed from tho garden, for damago to hedge and to a pohutn-' Imwa treo; and a third for 10s. for ■ cleaning up the premises after the defendant's departure. His , Worship thought it waa rather difficult to como to an exact assessment in this caso,.-altliough plaintiff was entitled to something. • Tho amount of tho claim was excessive, but judgment would be entered for plaintiff for 30s. and costs 6s. .