MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 27 June 1924, Page 1

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THURSDAY, JUNE 20th

(Before W. Meldrum. Esq., S.Af.)

DISK UT ED 1’ A R'lN ERS Mil’. The Court was engaged from before mid-day till four o’clock in completing the bearing of a series of three civil cases, all invohed in one set of circumstances as alfectiug an alleged partnership 'The parties to the suits were; J. McGuigan (Mr Aluriloch) v. AY. .1. Unsold’ and J. Railomski, claim for e;i is lid, and \V. J. Haseler (Air Pdkington) v. Joseph Railomski (Air Murdoch) claim for £l2 s)s 2d. A counter claim was made by Joseph Railomski (Mr Aluriloch) v. AV. |Risclcr. (Air l’ilkingtun) claim £“' Ms (id.

'These ca-es had engaged the Court at the two previous sittings, a month, and two weeks ago, ami were then adjourned, being ineompleted, until the present sittings. Lengthy evidoneo had boon given at the previous sittings by Joseph Railomski (who was in the box for about two hours) who gave particulars of his business connection with Haseler, alleging a partnership existed in eon tracts for work for Gillaiulers and Arnhura Dairy Factory; by B. Ward as to the letting of the tender; by James ]j. Ruth von, an employee on the first named work; AV. J. Haseler, the defendant, who denied that there was any partnership between himself and Railomski; and by A. Gillaiulers for whom one of the tenders affected was carried out. 'There was also a dispute as to payments made between the two parties to the alleged partnership, while J. AlcGuigan’s suit rested on tlie outcome of tlie other suit as to who should pay his claim, which was admitted as due. At the recent, sitting evidence was given by Airs Haseler. K. Glover and others, and then Counsel addressed the Bench.

THK JFMH.AIKXT. Mis Worship in giving judgment said it, apnoared that there worn two questions to decide The first wtis whether there was a partnership between llailomski and Mnseler in connection with ihe Millnnders iumract, and secondl.V whether there was a contract between the parties in the Arahnra contract. In the (inlanders contract there was no doubt, that- the job was taken up in th»‘ first instance by Maseler. (iilhinders in his evidence staied Maseler was tin' contractor and that as far as lie knew Itadoniski had no interest in the job. The evidence of Gibbous who worked there was Mini Maseler was the 1,-,ss and iiial lladoniski was only one of the workmen taking his orders like the rest from Maseler. There was also tile point that lladoniski signed the wastes Imnk lor wastes received on the Hilhimlers’ contract. The whole of the evidence goes to show that there was no partnership in the Millanders contract, and that, lladoniski. in view of his receivin': it- l>er day more than he was reeeivinft in 1 1 is previous job acted as a friend in advancing cash when Haseler was short before receiving a progress payment. The mins was on lladoniski of proving a partnership, and this \\.,s not discharged. Me held it was not proved that a partnership existed. In regard to the Arahnra job the fact- are onite difl'erenl. and a decision was much more dilhcult to arri\e at. There was no doubt that lids cunt met was Ilaseler's, as he signed for it. and was regarded as the contractor, and on lh:> comnletion of the work lla.-eler had to :milmrity to nay fine the money was ptiid over hv the l.'aclorv Company. The question to he decided was wliether there existed a partnership between Maseler and l.adntnski in connection with the work. It seemed to him that though Maseler drew tip ihe com rati and specification of requirements that it was done fot Itadinnski to carry out the work. M I faseler had been interested in the completion of the work lie would probable have given more time to it. As it, was lie milv worked four hours on this job and that was to do some worklie had agreed with lladoniski to do Mint the la tun could not carry out. It appeared that it was nut. until lladoniski found the job a losing one. that. any tronh.e lici'an Kxtra work done on the contort was taken by lladoniski who took the payment therefor for himself, the Arahnra Company agreeing with lladoniski for this work, which tended in show that he was carrying out the .ludguiefil would lie given as billows:— , , . . , In the ease of J. McMuigan ,iudgnient would be given for pla.nt.l as against .1. lladoniski for £d Is (id and costs £1 lGs. No costs would ho allowed Maseler. In the case of AV. J. Maseler v. .1. lladoniski. claim £l2 Oa iM. .mdgment would he given for Maseler lor the amount with costs £ I Ids. 11l the counter claim. .1. lladoinsUi '. AV .T Maseler for £l)7 I N 0.1. Uadomski was non-suited costs being allowed amiinst him amounting to L'l !«■-. "(In Mr Murdoch's application the bond for an appeal on facts and law was fixed at £*>o.