Wanganui Supreme Court

Feilding Star, Volume XIII, Issue 47, 17 October 1891, Page 2

Wanganui Supreme Court

COLLINS V. POLLOCK This was a claim arising out of a partnership which ceased several years ago. Mr Baker appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Richmond for the defendant. The facts of the case are as follows : — In the year 1881 the plaintiff and defendant were carrying on business together as confectioners at Feilding. In consequence of a disagreement it was decided to dissolve the partnership, and steps were taken accordingly. The premises were adyertised for sale without reserve, and it was arranged that Pollock should go down to Wellington to be present at the sale and that Collins should remain in Feilding to look after the business. Collins, public house licensee, examined by Mr Baker, stated that when the defendant came back to Feilding arid in. formed him he had purchased the pro. per-ty for he was much surprised. He did not admit the yalidity of the sale, but he left the premises, as he was afraid of Pollock, who was of a very violent nature. He detailed his proceedings with regard to his claim since he left the business, with the intent to show that he had never given up his right to it, notwithstanding the sale. la cross-examination by Mr Richmond witness' statements became much, confused as to his behaviour when lie learned of the sale. He was apparently S of a highly neivous temperament and did not seem to grasp the purport of questions put by counsel. At one time he would say he protested immediately against Pollock having bought the build* ing, and just aftec he would 'say he said nothing about it to Pollock personally because he was afraid of him. Eventually it was elicited that he had communicated with Pollock shortly after the sale through a third party. James Linton, land agent and valuer of Palmerston North, testified that the present value of the building was about - £800, and he thought its value would be "* about the same of ISSI. In cross-examination, witness said property was at a low ebb in 1881 and it was within the bounds of possibility that this special buildiug had depreciated very greately between 1880 and IS9I. No further witnesses were called for ths plaintiff. «A M - P .° I llock > farmer, of Feilding, was the nrst witness examined for the defence • i , w^ n< j lover1 over tho S roui "i of disagreement 171 th Oolhm wbiqjb le d to the dissolving of the partnership, which he contended arose out of the erratic behaviour of the plamtiu. . > : The Court adjourned at; 5 p.m. till to day. r ■