PARTNERSHIP CASE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXII, Issue 4333, 21 October 1921, Page 2

PARTNERSHIP CASE.

CLAIM FOR PAYMENT. A case in which Bernard Stansfield .and Co. (Mr Hanna) claimed £lB 13s 9d from Miss E. M, Healey (Mr Montague) was heard at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The amount was for goods purchased from the business now controlled by plaintiff. Bernard Stansfield said the goods set out in an accoun; were supplied to defendant. The accpunt which hai been sent to Miss Healey had not been paid. To Mr Montague witness said that at the time of the transaction he was in partnership wiph Mr Pickworth. Miss Healey had written legardihg the matter. He did not dissolve partnership with Mr Pickwprth because of this matter. Witness had done the - auctioneering while Mr Pickwortn. had controlled the books. Miss Healey had never taken’ delivery of a clock. A 'large dining table and other articles including a clock and an ice chest had been stored for Miss Healey. The goods were, in the mart for months. Interest was not shown on the account. ‘ ’ Mr Montague said the defendant had been approached by plaintiff's partner and been told that she could get the goods for some money ftwmg to her. , Ethel May Healey, residing in Parnell, Auckland, said the account with Stansfield, and Co; was incurred while she was starting in a boardinghouse at Ngatea. She had no knowledge that the account was owing till some time afte-. Before she bought the goods from plaintiff she had negotiated for goods from an Auckland firm. She had written several letters to Mr Pickworth regarding the matter. She had not received l any intimation that plaintiff was holding the clock for her at her risk. x To Mr Hanna witness said she. was to have, received £2 per week for housekeeping done for Mr Pickworth'. This money was later arranged to be taken in goods from the mart by arrangement with plaintiff’s late partner. Mr Pickwcrth was to pay plaintiff for goods obtained by witness. His Honour said that on . Miss Healey’s evidence Mr Pickworth owed her about £4O, but was his own private debt. Miss Healey may have been shabbily treated by some per- > son, but the firm was not responsible.; The judgment was for the plglx&B