DENIAL OF PARTNERSHIP

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2938, 19 September 1925, Page 2

DENIAL OF PARTNERSHIP

A QUESTION OF LIABILITY. A defended civil ease in which C. E. Dempsy, Liquidator for the Foxton Motor & Engineering Co., proceeded against the Foxton Distributing C’o., for the recovery of £22 16s 9d, for work done, occupied a good deal of time at the lo'•al S.M. Court yesterday. Mr. Bergin appeared for the Liquidator, and said that G. T. Woodroofe confessed to half the amount owing but slated that bis partner Mr. McMurray denied partnership in the company on the grounds that be was an undischarged bankrupt tit the time.

In evidence, Mr. Woodroofe staled that Mr. McMurray had urged hint to go into the business of the Distributing Company. Mr. MeMnr ray kept the books as secretary to (lie company. Witness made all arrangements in connection with a partnership on a fifty-fifty basis. The debt sued for was for repairs to a lorry which McMurray took into (he plaintiff’s garage. In March last tilings were not going too well and McMurray wanted wages and said he was not a partner in the business

Mr McMurray: What was the date of the partnership —The date was to be arranged when you were discharged from bankruptcy. Continuing, Mr. Woodroofe said that it had been hoped that Mr McMurray would be discharged from bankruptcy early last year but he had not been discharged until August. Mr McMurray: You said the arrangement was half and half but I did all the work and you did nothing. Papers in c-onection with the purchase of a lorry by the company were handed to the S.M., showing that both parties signed the agreement. The S.M. to Mr. McMurray: You must have been a partner in the lorry if you both signed the agreement. Mr. McMurray: The registration is ill Mr. W-oodroofe’s name. Mr McMurray to witness: Did you buy in you own name? —Yes You were an undischarged banktupt and your wife stood security. Wits I not to get living expenses. —No.

Mr. McMurray stated that in April last year they had mutually agreed to start the business, but he was at the time an undischarged bankrupt. The S.M.: Didn’t you give the public to understand that by correspondence. What was the fidelity bond for?

Mr. McMurray: They were given to understand that.

The S.M.: Although you told the: that you are still a partner.

Mr. McMurray: If I was I did not know it. Mr. Woodroofe said he would find the money and witness wanted living expenses as lie bad nothing. The understanding was that witness was to go into partnership when he was discharged from bankruptcy, which was not until August last year.

To Mr. Bergin: Witness kept all the accounts and one in his own name in the ledger. He received payments and gave receipts and sometimes kept money so received as wages. The S.M.: If you were a servant you should have accounted to Woodroofe for all monies received You had no right to do that unless you were a partner. Witness said that he mostly asked Woodroofe’s consent

Mr Bergin: Did you ever collect money and keep it and tell Woodroofe of the fact a few days later. —No. A few small amounts only. Would your wife pledge property in the business if she did not know (here was a proper partnership arranged.—Unfortunately she did. Site did not know.

Mr. Bergin referred to a prosecution of the company by the Maim w'atu County Council in July or August last year and asked witness if lie bad asked the Court to have the summons amended from Woodroofe to the Distributing Co. —Yes.

Why did you do that.—For an ndvertisment for the company. Did you state that Messrs. Woodroofe & McMurray were carrying m the business. —No.

Did you ask to have the summons amended merely for an advertisement. —Y 7 es.

Mr. Bergin: You ought to work for Charles Haines. (Laughter}. Mr, McMurray said that three months ago Woodroofe had dismissed him without notice.

Mr. Bergin: That was because you claimed wages as a servant and would not hand over the lorry. I took double action and dismissed

you. The S.M. said that as far as the general public were concerned there was a partnership. Judgment would be given against both defendants. McMurray could sue Woodroofe for the recovery of his share.