SUPREME COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 25 February 1933, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

SITTING AT GREYMOUTH, GREYMOUTH, February 24. The sitting of the Supreme Court opened at Greymouth, to-day, before Mr Justice Reed, civil business being dealt with.

It was announced that the claim of the Union Steam Ship Company, Ltd., against. the Greymouth Harbour Board, in; connection with the wreclc of the Sts. . Kaponga, had been discontinued.

Settlements were announced in the following cases:—Bell v. Kyle; Mooio v. Hempseed and others; King others v. F. Stewart; King v. Mead and Herrick. , ■

IN BANKRUPTCY. On the motion of the Deputy Official Assignee 4% saylor) v made releasing him from the administration, under the Bankruptcy Act, of the following estates: — Thomas Brown, grocer, Greymouth; John Drake, contractor, Greyiuouth ; Charles Chamley, butcher, Wailsend; George Stanton, miner, Greymouth/ Stanley Darrell, second-hand dealer, Greymouth; Edward Smith, hotelkeeper, Rapahoe; John Hay Taylor Campbell, timber worker, Greymouth; , Henty Marshall, fruiterer, Greymouth; Lancelot George Iggo, dealer, GreyHio&th; Herbert Vi'ncent Mathias, . fanner, Punakaiki; Fred Hall, farm- I er, Inchbonnie; Dennis O’Callaghan, labourer, Te Kinga; 'Peter Claude } Thomson, electrician, Greymouth; j . George Long Lowe, fruiterer, Greymouth; Francks Leslie Fenton, labour- 1 er, Kotuku; Wilfred Cecil Kennedy, 1 bus proprietor, Greymouth; and Jonn . Curra Truscott, grocer, Greymouth. MINING APPEAL.

The story of an unhappy gold-min-ing party was retold, when an appeal wijs lodged against the .decision of the .W arden (Mr W. Meldrum) in connection with a dissolution of partnership, and accounts, concerning a sluicing claim at Hukawai. The case was heard at Reeiton on November 16tli, 1932, and the Warden gave judgment for plaintiff, Peter Mitchell, for £2(if 15s, costs £5 Is, and solicitor’s fee £l3 7,s 9d. The Warden made an order, finally adjusting the amounts to be paid into the partnership account as follow: Mitchell to pay £l7l, George B. Mclnroe, Richard llonehi, Antonio Rubbo, Giovanni Bubbo, and Bortoio Rubbo each to pay £lO2 12s, a total

of £684. Payments to be made as fol-

low out of £684: To Mitchell £267 15s, Mclnroe £144 Os 3d, Ronclii £7 10s 10s, I Antonio Rubbo £BB 11s 9d, Giovanni Rubbo £B7 13s 9d, Bortoio Rubbo £B7 ,13s 9d. disbursements £127 Is lid to be paid out of £155 received from the sale; balance of £27 18s Id to go first in payment of plaintiff’s costs £lB 18s 9d, balance of £9 9s 4d to be paid to plaintiff. Antonio, Giovanni, and Bortoio Rub- : bo appealed against this decision, and were -represented by Mr L. E. Morgan. : The respondent, Mitchell, was represented by Mr J. W. Hannan. Mr Morgan stated that Mr X. Patterson, Reef,ton, was acting for Mclnroe and Ronchi, but he was not present. . 1 In the course of his evidence, Antonio Ruboo alleged that Mitchell was 1 caught early one morning, stealing gdd from the sluice-boxes, and that started the trouble between the partners.

Mr Hannan said that Mitchell took the gold for testing purposes, and handed it to Mr Patterson, the solicitor for all the parties. Mitchell could have been cross-examined on the matter, when lie was in the witness-box at Reel'ton. Mr Morgan stated that, after the incident, they agreed t,o purchase Mitchell’s share for £SOO. Antonio Rubbo denied that he chas-

ed Mitchell with an iron bar,, or axe. Mitchell stated that things got “too hot” for him, and that he went in fear of liis lfie. He objected to the Italians going to the sliuce-boxes anc( washing up the gold, when they had not paTu him what they owed him. Under cross-examination, Mitchell admitted that he washed up the main sluice-box, but contended that he had a right to do so. The Italians were not working their full time, everybody was a boss, and he (Mitchell) was nobody.

His Honour said it seemed to him that the Warden had settled the matter as well as he could, in the tangled circumstances. He thought, however, that there should not be any personal liability attached to the appellants. He though the best way would be vu vary the Warden’s judgment, to remove any personal liability from the appellants. Apparently, the claim was a “duffer,” bj the price secured for it at auction. “I think this judgment must be varied,” added His Honour. “I don’t think there is any personal liability attached to the defendants, I think

the position will be met by niy allowing the; judgment to be varied, b,V ' omitting -the first portion, f judgment for £267/15/-, with costs. The judgment of the Warden will be varied to that extent. It simply leaves the accounts as he found them, which practically means that no one gets anything, X suppose,” Mr Morgan: It really means that someone will bave to pay. His Honour: That should not be. This should al|l be paid <but of t|be partnership accounts. Mr Morgan said that Mitchell was well ahead 'of the others, financially. IXonchi was practically bankrupt, and it meant that the Rubbos would have to contribute. „ They were the men who had paid over £IOO solid cash into the concern, in addition to their share of the purchase money. They had also worked five months, improving the claim, ancl got nothing out of it.

His Honour: I don’t intend the judgment to come out that way at all. M.y view is that the partnership i s practii cally bankrupt, it cannot pay all its | liabilities, I don’t think there should ! be any contribution towards this, at all. Purely from an academic point of view, the position of the various partners is ascertained by the Warden, in Clause 2 of his judgment, but that, does not mean these persons are required to contribute, inasmuch as they are not liable outside the partnership itself. Mr Morgan said it might be presumed that action could be taken for contributions, based on the Warden's judgment.

His Honour': I will think of the form of the order. My view is that there should be no personal liability for the payment of whatever balance there is. 1 will consider in the meantime how I should frame that.

CARTERS’ APPEAL DISMISSED. John Morrow, lorry driver of the Twelve Mile, and Maurice Robert Spiers, of Rnpahoe, contractor (Mr W. P. McCarthy) appealed from a decision of Mr W. Meldrum, S.M. whereby appellants were fined £5 with costs in the lower court, on charges that, they operated motor lorries exceeding 41 tons on the main highway at Rapahoe.

His Honour said the regulations prescribed certain things, and gave certain powers. Tlie appeals would be dismissed with costs of three and ahalf guineas against each appellant.