SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4237, 19 October 1874, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SlTTlNGS.—’ Saturday, October 17. TRIBE V. WATT. The following jury were sworn : —W. L. Hirst (foreman), D. T. Stuart, R. Port, W. H. Meek, W. V. Jackson, R. Burrett, G. Beetham, J. W. Stevenson, J. Dyer, T. J. Ladd, J. A. Edmondson, and J. A. Allan. The Attorney-General and Mr. Moorhouse for the plaintiff, and Mr. Travel’s for the defendant.

By this action the plaintiff sought to establish proof of the existence of a partnership with the defendant in the proprietorship of the Wanganui Chronicle, newspaper, as entered into by arrangements made in September, 1873, and on that claims to have an account taken of the dealings and transactions of the business that the partnership may be dissolved. The Attorney-General opened the case, and called the following evidence : G. H. Tribe, sworn, stated : I am a journalist, and have had about twelve years’ experience in the management of newspapers. I was residing in Wellington in September, 1873, when I had a communication with Mr. Watt, in consequence of which I went to Wanganui and saw the defendant. We had a long discussion as to starting a paper in Wanganui with a plant that Mr. Watt owned. Eventually the Chronicle was bought for £IOOO. I made an offer to Mr. Watt to participate in the risks of the venture. I was to find the brains, and he the capital. I was to draw out £1 per week, chargeable to the business, and he was to receive 8 per cent, on his capital. There were no terms as to priority of allowances. £6O a year was to be paid Mr. Watt for rental of the premises, and after these charges the profits were to be equally divided. It was stipulated that the partnership was to be terminable by three months' notice on either side. I was to have the management of the business. We agreed with the late proprietor to carry on the paper for the month of October for £IOO. I took charge of the paper on the 20th of October. I understood that Mr. Watt lodged £IOOO in the Bank to the credit of the proprietors of the Wanganui Chronicle. Mr. Watt introduced me to the manager of the Bank as the person who was to operate on the account. I did operate on the account, signing the cheques for proprietors of Wanganui 'Chronicle. The‘.purchase of the paper was paid for by £7OO by cheque, out of the £IOOO capital, signed by me, and an acceptance for £250, which I did: not sign.- I received the proceeds of the business and paid them into the Bank. There was one reporter on the paper, at a salary of £4 per week. Not less than £6 per week would be a fair salary to pay an editor and manager of such a paper without a

share. The profits of the paper increased rapidly. The advertisements increased 30 per cent, by the month of December. About the middle of November a case, Watt v. Ballance, was decided by arbitration iu favor of the former. The proceedings were not made public, Mr. Watt gave me a copy of the award in the case, and requested me to publish au “ extra" of it. I had it printed iu ordinary type, that it might afterwards appear in the paper. He was very indignant at it, saying that if it had been telegraphic news I would have made it conspicuous; but a matter in which he was warmly interested I brought out in a mean manner. I said it would not pay the paper to.make a parade of such a business. Matters then went on smoothly till December, Mr. Watt taking no part in the management or control of the paper. At the end of that month, I had occasion to apply to Mr. Watt for money for wages. He raked up the Watt-Ballance business. I told him I should want advances amounting to £IOO, in excess of the £IOOO, and that tlxat amount would be recouped before any division of profits was made, and that the £250 for the acceptance or balance of purchase should be treated in the same manner. He then proceeded to complain of the paper being indifferently conducted, and seemed to be seeking cause for a quarrel. He said that the paper often appeared ■without a leader. I referred to the file, and found that forty-two leaders appeared in eight weeks, thirty-five of which were written by myself. I had previously arranged with a person in Wellington to write two leaders a week, and I had not then received any from himand only a few from one of Mr, Watt’s friends,, who he had said would assist me with leaders. I got the £IOO. I afterwards applied for more money, which led to an interview with Mf Watt, when he told me he had made other arrangements about the paper, and he wished me, to leave it. Mr. Watt offered me £25 to settle all matters between us. I said four times that amount would not satisfy me. In any case, I must have half profits on the current quarter, and half profits and £4 per week in lieu of notice. Mr. Watt asked me that evening why I did not let the matter go to arbitration, I replied that I was willing to do so, but I must have a referee. He agreed, and I was to name an arbitrator for myself. I called next morning, and submitted a name, and he then demurred to the expense of the deed of submission, and wanted the arbitration done without. I said I could not ask a friend to act in such a manner. After several letters had passed, I wrote again, trying to bring the matter to arbitration. Before the 10th of January, I went to the office one day and found that matter which I had given out for the paper had been distributed, according to Mr. Watt's instructions, and received a note from Mr. Hardinge, the reporter, stating that he was placed in charge of the paper until a new editor arrived. I then wrote to Mr. Watt, reminding him of mir agreement of joint interest, protesting against his line of conduct, and stating that I should insist on my rights in the joint interest. I received no answer to that letter. At this time there was an action for libel proceeding against the paper by a Mr. Duthie, and it was then discovered that the proprietorship had passed through two hands without the registration having been altered. We were then threatened with proceedings for not having it registered. Mr. Watt then suggested that the paper should be registered iu the name of his storeman. I would not agree that this should be done. Mr. Watt then said, “Well, put it in my name,” and I consented. I gave no direction for the imprint being altered from the plural to the singular. The printer probably did it through having registered the paper in Watt’s name. The latter never objected to the imprint being in the plural. Cross-examined —The Christchurch Evening Mail was the first paper I had connection with. It was as proprietor. I had it exclusively for two years. I had the management of it, but was not editor.,.l-admitted , two partners subsequently, and the three sold out to a joint stock company. My next paper was the Ross Guardian, of which I was manager and editor. It continued about two years. My next engagement was in starting a small paper called the Ross News, which I conducted for some time. There was an interval of four years between having the Guardian and the News. I also took Mr. Harrison’s place on the Independent for five weeks. In negotiating with Watt I first mentioned the £4a week. The matter of half profits was not dependent on the success of the undertaking, being arranged to exist from commencement. The profits of the business were to bo allowed to accumulate to recoup Mr. Watt all advances above the £IOOO. There wasnostipulation that I was to share theintcrest in the plant. Mr. Watt never complained that the concern was not paying. Between the purchase of the paper and January I required £SOO from Mr. Watt for current expenses, out of which I drew £4 per week as salary. The cash expenses were £27 per week including my salary. There was very little derivable from ready money business. This closed the plaintiff’s case. For the defence, Mr. Travers called

W. H. Watt, who being sworn stated ; The arrangement which I made with Mr. Tribe at the first interview was that he should have £2OO a year for editing the paper. Afterwards, at the Chronicle office, he complained that it was very little, and said that he should have a halt share of the profits. I agreed that if it was a success under his management, he should have half the profits, in addition to the salary of £2OO a-year. The word partnership was never mentioned until we had the differences. The letter produced instructing the bank on the account to the credit of the proprietor of the Chronicle, and signed by Mr. Tribe as a specimen of his signature for means of drawing, on the account, was read by Mr. Tribe before signing, and was written before the complaint ho made about the salary being small. The arrangements about the management did hbt prove satisfactory. The paper fell off in public estimation. Cross-examined : I know that the circulation fell off, because two or three of my friends gave it up. There was nothing said between Mr. Tribe and myself about interest on the capital being taken out of the business. Nothing was said about £4 a-week. It was £2OO a-year that was agreed upon.

Freeman Jackson : I remember an interview between plaintiff and defendant about tho Chronicle newspaper. Mr. Watt offered Tribe £2OO a-year, and that the latter should receive, as an inducement, a share of the profits. There was nothing said about partnership in the matter.

E. T. Broughton : I am in the employment of Messrs. Taylor and Watt. I was present at an interview between Messrs. Watt and Tribe about the Chronicle. After some discussion, it was fixed that Mr. Tribe should have £2OO ayear. I was present when something was said further about remuneration, and Mr. Watt said that if the paper was a success Mr. Tribe should have a half of the profits. I never heard of Mr. Tribe’s name as a partner until lately. Cross-examined: The interview between Watt’s and Tribe was at Taylor and Watt’s office, not at tha Chronicle. It was arranged that throe months’ notice on either side should be required to terminate the arrangement, if the parties did not suit each other. This completed the evidence for the defence. Mr. Travers then addressed the Court for the defendant. He argued that no partnership existed, on the grounds that there hod been no proof of, or arrangement for, a share in losses as well as profits ; and that unless both wore shared there could be no partnership. The learned gentleman quoted from numerous cases in support of his view. The Attorney-General replied, contending that it had been proved by the evidence that a partnership did exist, and that it was entirely consistent that the plant for the paper should remain the property of the defendant, and a partnership still exist in the business. His Honor then summed-up, and directed the jury. After a retirement of a quarter of an hour the jury returned the following findings: “ That the plaintiff did enter an agreement with the defendant for his services on the paper, for which he was to receive a salary of £2OO a-year: That at the same time it was agreed he should, in addition thereto, receive one half of any net profits. ’ The Court then adjourned tine die.