SUPREME COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 17 June 1930, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

SITTING AT HOKITIKA

(Before His Honour, Mr Justice Adams.)

AFTERNOON SITTING.

His Honour took his seat at 2 p.m

Fahey Bros. v. Priest Bros, Beck-

er, ifarrell and Stewart, a claim for t'2o2 for cartage of timber. Mr Murdoch for plaintiffs, Mr Hannan foi the. defendants Priest Bros., the other defendants not appearing. Reuben Bell, clerk in charge of Records of the Warden’s Court, Hokitika, gave evidence of ownership of part interest of holding of sawmill site and reservation to 26th November, 1929, when it was transferred to Parker Bros. John Priest and Alford Priest held one-quarter share each.

Mr Murdoch said this evidence was to prove a partnership within Section 325 of the Mining Act. Hugh John Fahey gave evidence

that he and his brother carried on business as carriers at Kumara, They carried the timber mentioned in the statement of for Priest lilid p.’i-ty. The prices were arranged, The mill was known as the Blaekwnter •Bill aliout 13 miles from Kumara Station. Of a total of pfyu had received £GSS, leaving a balance of £259 5s Id. The carting, was done for the five defendants mentioned in the statement of claim. ‘The amount claimed is still owing. Neither of the Priests gave notice of retiring from the partnership. To Mr Hannan: He did not join partnership with his brother till Ist August. 1828. Before that Inglis and Fahey carried on the partnership. The two Priests were not at the mill all the time, but they were some tune after lie look a partnership with his brother. He had not heard anything of the Priests leaving the partnership, though he knew they had gone away. The business arrangements were made by his brother. The work of the Qompany continued for some time after the Priests left the district. Looked to the partners for payment. Prior to the issue of the write lie had not made a demand on Priest Bros, for payment of the account. Had asked for payment from Farrell. To Mr Murdoch; Thomas Baxter had the mill before Priest and party.

To Mr Hannan: He did not drive the lorry that took Priests furniture away from Blackwa.ter.

Martin Richard Fahey gave evidence that he was a carrier at nmra, Had i u cor> carting for Baxter when lie owned the mill. Looked to Priests, Farrell, Becker and. Stewart for the payment of cartage. Farrell was the manager. Farrell told wit* ness the .Priests, Farrell,. Becker and Stewart were equal partners. No one told witness that the Priests would not be responsible for the cartage.

To Mr Hannan: After Priests left he heard they were selling out, but received no word from the '-horses. Knew the partners were pot a happy family, No one mentioned Priests were selling out. Did not know who signed the cheques. The null inppod operations in March, 1929.

This was (he case for the plaintiff. Mr Hannan asked for a non-suit on "the grounds that the laintijff had not proved the account. Mr Hannan led evidence ; s follows •—•

John Priest gave evidence that m M’arch, 1928, witness, Stewart, Becker, Farrell and his brother purcluneu tlier Blackwater sawmill and carried on into June, 1928. Then a d'.-j ate arose and Stewart. Becker anc' Fairell bought out his brother and wUness. Witness and his brother continued working on until well in September oil wages. Fahey and Inglis did the carting for the mill. Personally told Inglis that witness and his brother had sold out. They had also discussed with the Faheys that .they were going out of the mill, and of leaving the partnership, Left Blackwater about the end of September, 1.928. John Fahey carted his furniture from the mill. Told him ho was going away and leaving the firm.

Have never had any demand from Fahey Bros till he received xlie writ. From the commencement of the partnership Farrell nnd witness signed cheques, up till 22nd June, 1928. To Mr Murdoch: tie could not say what, the Company owed the mortgagees, it may have .been over £2OOO. Could not say what was owing for cartage when he left the nub. There were no other debts to his. knowledge. He sold bis interest for payment cn terms and was going to make the transfer on payment of the cheques. The cheques were never paid. Did not give any newspaper notice, just simply walked out. Albert Priest gave evidence on similar lines to bis brother.

Walter James Inglis ga/o iwder.ee that up to. August, 1928, lie was in partnership with Martin Fahey. Knew the Priest Bros, had left u.e ] aitner.sbip before August, 1928. T 1 ey informed him. Think his partner Faliev knew this also. There was n ( , s< cret what was happening at the mill. Mis Honour said there "as a direct conflict of testimony betwem tbe parties, hut lie was prepared ro accept as true, the evidence given by fho defendant Priest that notice was given shortly after the dissolution of partnership. His Honour said lie was satisfied the partnership was properly dissolved and that notice was given by the two defendants. The two defendant Priests, were entitled