SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1985, 15 September 1869, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

This Day

CIVIL .SITTINGS. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Ward.) STAMPER V. WILSON. The plaintiff in this case, and the defendant Wilson, together with Mr Kids ton, entered into partnership as solicitors, in Dunedin, the plaintiff advancing LG7O for use in the business. The partnership was ultimately dissolved, and the plaintiff now sought to know what proportion of the money he advanced should be returned to him. Mr Stewart appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Macassey for the defendant. Mr Stewart, in opening the case explained to the jury that the plaintiff advanced the premium of LC7O for a term of seven years, and that as the partnership had been suddenly dissolved, he now sought to recover the proportion of premium which he considered his due, by reason of his not having enjoyed the profits of the partnership for the full term for which the premium was advanced. Having explain dto the jury the particulars of the partnership, a full report of which has already appeared in the Star, he called the plaintiff. John Stamper, the plaintiff, deposed that in consequence of certain statements made to him by Mr Wilson, he left Mr Haggilt, with whom he was a partner, and entered into partnership with Messrs Wilson and Kidston as solicitors in Dunedin. The partnership was for seven years, and he was to receive a third share, advancing L 670 by way of premium. Mr Wilson subsequently went to England, and was absent twenty, two months. During his absence Mr Kidston left, and after Mr Wilson’s return the business was in such an unsatisfactory state that he and Mr Wilson dissolved. The net profits of the business during the whole period of the partnership amounted to LI 009, out of which he (the witness) had received L 467. The premium was advanced for the seven years, and he now sought to recover a proportion of the premium of L 670 due to him by reason of the termination of the partnership before the specified time. By Mr Macassey : I have been engaged in four equity suits. I obtained LT2OO fiom Mr Haggitt in equity. I knew Mr Wilson’s friends in England, and slightly knew Mr Wils >n before the partnership I was in Dunedin eighteen months before I entered into the partnership, and I knew nothing whatever of Mr Wilson’s business. Mr Wil son told me that his income was L 3,500 per annum. I believed ou paying the L6JO premium that I was going into a business worth over L4OOO a year. I did not avail myself of Mr Wilson’s offer, to examine the books. lam not a cautions man. lam too off-hand. Before Mr Wilson left for England, he offered to sell his share. I did not imagine that he was leaving the Colony for good. I had a difference with Mr Kidstop from the first,

but I do not remember any difference wit Mr Wilson. I was dissatisfied with the case of Little v. Brauigan being undertaken by the firm, and I also was dissatisfied with the business of the firm with disreputable women, but I made no complaint to Mr Wilson. I will swear that some of these women were clients before Mr Wilson left. I prosecuted Mr Kidstou for perjury. I did not receive LoO from Mr iviilstou after I had laid the information. 1 received LSO from the bank from the partnership account, and I believe I signed the cheque. I do not think Mr Kidston signed it. I withdrew the prosecution before I received the 150, but I told him I did not wish to p osecute him. and I stipulated that he should place the firm’s money into the bank to the firm’s account I deny that before I withdrew the prosecution I stipulated that LSO was to be given to me. I still maintain that the charge of perjury against Mr Kidstou was a true one. I did not give my clerks money to solicit business in pot-houses. The paragraph in my letter to Mr Wilson, seating that “ our clerk, Dods, was supplied with money to attend pot-houses to solicit business,” is true. Mr Kidstou paid that money, but I agreed to it. I did charge Mr Kidston, in my letter to Mr Wilson, with being a low being, cheating fellow, and with abstracting money belonging to the firm. After Mr Kidston absconded, I kept an account of all the business that I did before Mr Wilson’s return. I kept a memorandum book, in which I entered the business up to the 2nd July. After that I merely entered transactions in the cash book. The entries in the cash book are for work done after Mr Kidston left. I had to turn business away, and my work showed a loss of LSO. I received frequent letters from Mr Wilson, asking for money, and stating that if money were sent he would return. If Mr Bathgate swears that he used every effort to bring about a reconciliation between Mr Kidston and myself, and that such effort was unavailing by my refusal to agree to terras, he states what is untrue. After Mr Wilson’s return 1 did not refuse to see him, and 1 swear X never ordered him out of the office.

By Mr Stewart: I made the charge of perjury because Mr Kidstou stated that he knew nothing about my having paid L 670 to Mr Wilson, and I withdrew it because Mr Kidstou seemed so downhearted, and I agreed if he would say he had committed the perjury rashly, I would withdraw it. I wrote the withdrawal so that it might satisfy Mr Strode, but I afterwards on reading over Mr Kidston’s affidavit, and bis memorandum, came to the conclusion that the perjury was committed deliberately and not rashly, and that is why I say that the charge was a true one. Mr Macassey, for the defence, called the defendant, but before the examination, he asked his Honor to take note of a point of law for furth'T discussion. Whether in thg event of a partner receiving any benefit or emolument, it was not for the benefit of the firm, and whether Mr Wilson was not acc mutable to Mr Kidston for his share of the L 670 premium. Mr W. W. Wilson stated at some length the negotiations between himself and Mr Stamper, both be f ore and after the partm rship. He said he never gave tip; plaintiff reason to understand that the profits of his business were L 3,500. One of the chief reasons he had in taking Mr Stamper into partnership was, -that he might be enabled to go to England. By reference to the ledger, he found that Mr Stamper had received L 576 6s lid ; Mr Kidstou, L 794 Ss 2d ; aud Mr Wilson, L 343 6s from the partnership. The affairs of the firm were on his return from England referred to arbitration, but he did not refer the proportion of money which Mr Stamper claimed from the premium, as lie thought it was a most unreasonable request. The witness was cross-examined at great length by Mr Stewart, and a large amount of correspondence was read. The case was proceeding ns our reporter left.