SUPREME COURT—NISI PRIUS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5246, 16 January 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT—NISI PRIUS.

Tuesday, January 15. (Before Mr. Ju tioe Richmond.) GILLON V. T. K. MACDONALD AND OTHERS. This was an action brought by plaintiff for the purpose.of enforcing an alleged partnership arrangement with reference to the Evening Argus, and to assess damage plaintiff had sus-’ tained in his expulsion from the said partnership. This case, it will be remembered, fell through at the last sittings of the Court owing to the jury being unable to agree to a verdict. Mr. Barton and Mr. Buckley appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Travers for the defendants. Mr. Barton opened the plaintiff 1 s case. He shortly explained the partnership between the parties and the alleged deed of arrangement. Some time was then occupied in making admissions with regard to documents and other matters, so as to shorten the trial. Edward Thomas Gillon, the plaintiff, was then examined. He stated that he had been editor of the Evening Pod, and had left in consequence of his standing for a seat in Parliament in opposition to the wishes of the proprietors. Mr. Saunders suggested at that time the purchase of the Tritium, and Mr. Hutchison, witness, Mr. McKirdy, and Mr. Saunders then made arrangements for a partnership to purchase the paper, and witness took two shares of £125 each in it. He told Mr. McKirdy he had not got the £250, and Mr. McKirdy said, “ Get what you can, and I will get the balance.” It was arranged that Messrs. Waters, Kent, and witness should conduct the paper, and that the names of McKirdy and the proprietors should not appear. They were only to have access to the books and see a half-yearly statement of affairs. Witness then paid £9O to the credit of Messrs. Gillon, Kent, and Waters into the Colonial Bank, and Mr. McKirdy paid for his own shares and witness’s shares to the same account. Business was carried on under the firm of Messrs. Gillon, Kent, and Waters. The name of the paper was changed to the Evening Argun, and it was registered under the names of Messrs. Gillon, Kent, and Waters. Subsequently a private partnership deed was prepared by Messrs. Travers, Ollivier, and Co., and approved of by' alb parties. The partnership business was carried on according to the provisions of this deed, and everything worked smoothly and well, as each “stuck" to his own department. Kent kept the books, witness was editor, and Waters was the printer. The other partners never attempted,to interfere in any way. They only attended meetings with reference to money matters.' 'Mr. Hayes wished to sell his two shares in the concern to witness ; and Mr. Turnbull,, the architect, and Mr. Micdonald, one of the present defendants, pur-: chased those two shares. Witness at a meeting of the proprietors strongly opposed any consent being given to such transfer, he having objected to Mr. Turnbull being introduced into the concern on the ground that ho (witness) had already written.severe strictures on Mr. Turnbull’s plan for the new Town Hall, and in consequence was not on speaking terms with Mr. Turnbull. He also objected to Mr, Macdonald, on the ground that he

i would never rest,. till he waq “ boss” of the; whole concern, just as he did with everything else that he was mixed up with. It was then arranged that Mr. Turnbull should not be admitted to the' partnership. Mr. McKirdy, promising that he'would keep Mr. Macdonald quiet, aud prevent him from interfering, with the business, witness withdrew his opposition to his admission, it. being distinctly understood that Mr. Macdonald was to hold, the two shares upon, exactly the same terms as they were held by Mr. Hayes, and that he was to have nothing to do with the management of the paper. After the transfer of the shares to Mr. Macdonald tilings went on quietly as before, until one morning witness on going to the office found that Mr. Fisher, the sub-editor, was absent. Upon inquiry, witness found that Mr. Fisher had been expelled from the office by Mr. Macdonald. Witness was very indignant at this improper interference with the staff of the paper, aud at a meeting of the proprietors expressed himself very strongly on the subject. The matter passed over, it being understood that Mr. Macdonald would not attempt any further interference with the management of the paper. Witness then described disputes which arose from time to time amongst parties as to the insertion of certain articles in the paper, aud his summary dismissal from the editorship, and exclusion from the office, and a levy upon his private property by tiie plaintiff in the action Anderson v. Gillon, Kent, and Waters. Cross-examined : With reference to the assignment of his shares to Mr. McKirdy, witness explained he only intended it to be by way of security for the advance made by Mr. McKirdy to witness to enable him to purchase these two shares in the paper. Frederick Cook, manager of the National Bank, was then called, and gave evidence as to cheques and bills signed by Mr. Gillon, as a partner in the newspaper firm of Gillon, Kent, and Waters, since the alleged sale of his shares. At this stage of the. proceedings, it being 5 o’clock, the Court rose.