A DISPUTED DEBT

Hokitika Guardian, 15 September 1931, Page 5

A DISPUTED DEBT

QUESTION OF PARTNERSHIP.

SUPREME COURT CASE, v: j

Yesterday afternoon the hearing was commenced before His Honor, Mr Justice Adams, of the following case.— Wm. Jeffries v. 'Henry D. James and W-. Saunders, claim in connection wiih partnership for £232 9s 3d. . ij Messrs Gresson and 'Murdoch for plaint tiff, Mr J. 'Hannan for defendant. Mr Gresson, in opening the case . for plaintiff, said away back in 1925 a Mr Stewart approached the plaintiff stating that one of the Saunders, a son-in-law. of Stewart’s, and H. I). James, had taken over a , butchery business, and asked for credit, which was agreed to. That Stewart as'the agent of the part-; nership had done the buying. •An account was opened and credit given in plaintiff's books to Saunders and Co; Stock was brought by Stewart, and entered tip to Saunders and Co., and payments were made by Saunders and Co., some of the cheques being signed, by H. D. James. In 1929 Jeffries was told that there was going to be an alteration in. 'the partnership. There was owing at that time £232 9s 3d. Saunders came to Jeffries and told him so. Jeffries asked about payment of the old account. Saunders said he would pay £IOO . and reduce the amount. It was agreed to allow the new firm to have credit. Counsel proceeded at length to rev!e\y the evidence proposed to be led. .... William Jeffries gave evidence that he' was carrying on business as a stock agent at Hokitika. In 1025 opened an account for Saunders and Co. Was approached by John Stewart, butcher of Kumara. From 1925 to 1929 Stewart bought continuously for Saunders and Co. and, payments were made by cheque by Saunders and Co. On 30th November 1929 Stewart approached witness and said he wished to purchase , for Saunders and Co., and asked for the usual credit. He said 'Saunders and Co. were Willie Saunders and Harry James. He said it was Hany James the totalisator proprietor. The account was agreed to and the account was opened in the ledger as Saunders and Co. with 'the partners- Harry Digby James and C. W. Saunders, entered in his own handwriting. Thff-’ account bought from £6O to £IOO,, up ,to £IBO per month. The account was! carried on from 1925 to Sept. 1929. (Received .some' cheques for the partnership* signed ': by .. James. In September 1929 there was to .be a change in the.ipartiier-; ship, W. Saunders told witness- ' that George Saunders was going in in'pice, of James. He asked witness if they paid up'the old account' would he allow the new account to go on. Witness replied agreeing. W. Saunders said if they, were given time the' new partnersh p would pay the old account. Told him, that he looked to the old partnership' for the amount of the old account. When.■\Yv hq s*id fee' would send.. £IOO. It did not wme to hand. Wrote; to him. Letter produced. No satisfactory arrangements were made for; payment by the new firm. Sent a letter to Mr James.- There was no reply ■ from. James. James has never denied that, fee, was a . partner. On 4th April 1930 •,.a. Suggestion was made that h® should take promissory notes for the two accounts, the names of James and Stewart, being named as endorsers, but these, were not received. On 27th. January 1930,. received original of dissolution of part| nership from James, and Saunders. Sub-; sequently Saunders and Co. asked if he would accept p/n’s without endorsement! He .accepted the p/n’s but stated he still held James responsible. Later when one was not paid, the whole of the p/n’s were returned. When the deed of assignment of Saunders and Co. was assigned he agreed to it with a proviso not waiving the liability of James for the old account. Either Xmas 1927 .or following Easter had a conversation with James and asked him how he was getting on with the butchery business. He just laughed and said all right. He was not at the office when the letter of 9th Feb. ruary was received and a receipt was sent for the £125 by his clerk. Phoned to Saunders the next afternoon and told W. Saunders that the £125 would have to go in payment of the new account and not on the old account. He said it was all right, let it go. Accounts were given credit for a fortnight. The Court adjourned at 5.30 p.m.