SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3025, 30 October 1872, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

NISI PRIUS SITTINGS.

This Day. (Before Mr Justice Chapman.)

PEARCE V. SMYTH. The case for the defendant was gone into yesterday, and resumed to-day. Mr Chaplin, in his evidence, denied that at the outset there was any arrangement that Pearce was to have any interest in the contract ; it was only after his tender had been accepted that he told Pearce he should have an interest in the job. He never arranged that Pearce should have an advance to be deducted ultimately from his share of the profits. Up to the time Smyth entered the concern, he did not in any way recognise Pearce as a partner. Smyth promised, if things turned out right, to give him (Chaplin) a third of the profits ; and he told him afterwards that lie had arranged that Pearce was to have another third, and for that third it was understood he would have to work. The defendant Smyth, in his evidence, said that before he went into the concern it was arranged that, as he was to find tire money, he was to have entire management; that Pearce was to have a third share of the profits, and to work, and that there was nothing said about his receiving maintenance money,; nor was any arrangement as that heard ever come to. Under the most favorable circumstances L3OO or L4OO would be lost on the contract. The jury returned a verdict substantial in favor of the defendant, answering the issues as follows; —That Pearce and Chaplin agreed to become partners, but not under tire style of Chaplin and Co. ; that such partnership was not on the terms that Chaplin should find the capital required, and the profits should be divided equally between him and Pearce ; or that the latter was to be paid L 4 10s weekly, to be afterward, deducted from iris profits, that Chaplin assigned his interest to Smyth, who became jointly interested with Pearce, on the same terms as Chaplin, each having a third share. His Honor certified for a special jury.