SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2148, 13 January 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT NIST PRI US. This Day. (Before Hie Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) The civil session opened at 10 a.m. WOODING V. HOLE. This was an action to recover the sum of £704 8s Id, which the plaintiff alleged to be due to him from the defendant for sums of money advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant at bis request, and for goods used on the farm. It appeared that the plaintiff was working for some time on the farm of the defendant as manager, and that while so employed he advanced certain monies for homes', &0,, to be used on the farm, and also engaged and paid various laborers employed on the farm, and provided board for the said laborers. The defendant, soon after the plaintiff came on the farm, arranged to take him into partnership, and on the strength of this the plaintiff advanced the defendant certain sums of money, as capital subscribed by him towards the partnership. The defendant, however, as alleged by the plaintiff, refused to execute the deed of partnership. Hence the plaintiff brought the action to recover the sums advanced by him, also salary as manager. The defendant’s plea was a general denial of all material allegations, and, further, that the partnership was entered into between plaintiff and defendant; that instructions were given by both parties for the preparation of a deed of partnership between them; but that the nlaiutiff, without consent of defendant, gave instructions for the abandonment of the same. That the sams advanced by the plaintiff were for the use of the partnership, and jthe plant bonght and labor employed was also for the working of the farm in partnership by the parties. That the defendant was always ready to take the plaintiff into partnership, and that it was impossible for the rights of the parties to be ascertained until the partnership accounts had been taken. The plaintiff denied all the material allegation!) contained in defendant’s pleas. Mr H. H. Hannah was chosen foreman of the special jury. Mr Joynt appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Holmes for the defendant. Evidence was led on both sides. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, the defendant called witnesses. The case was proceeding when we went to press.