SUPREME COURT—NISI PRIUS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5247, 17 January 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT—NISI PRIUS.

Wednesday, January 16. (Before Mr. Ju tree Richmond.) B. T. GILLON V.;T. K. MACDONALD AND OTHERS. The hearing of this action was resumed from the previous day. Mr. Barton, assisted by Mr. Buckley, appeared ’ for the plaintiff; Mr. Travers for the defendants. Plaintiff continued his evidence with respect to the transfer of his shares, and said he understood that he would have to pay the money back at a mouth’s notice, and give McKirdy a fair interest. This closed plaintiff’s case. Mr. Travers, in opening the defence, said a large mass of matter had been introduced into the case which it was quite unnecessary to take into consideration. There was no doubt that Mr. Gillon was originally one of the proprietors of the Argus with other gentlemen,, carrying on the business under the firm of Grillon, Kent, and Waters, until the assignment by Mr. GU'.on ef his shares to an outside party. Plaintiff continued to act in the capacity of editor. He had nothing to do with the proprietorship of the paper. There was a degree of laxity in the mode of conducting the paper, and plaintiff was present at the meetings of directors as editor; but he intended to prove that Mr. Gillon was not at that time a proprietor. James Stewart deposed that he was a timber merchant, and in partnership with Mr. Greenfield. Witness was one of the original sleeping proprietors of the Evening Argus, his co-partners being Messrs. Gillon, Kent, Waters, McKirdy, Saunders, and Hayes. Gillon handed witness his resignation as editor of the Argus, remarking at the time that as he had ceased to be a part proprietor, through having sold his shares, he had not the spirit to work, and there was nothing else for him to do but resign. Witness advised him that as he was hard up, for the sake of his wife and children, he had better keep on until he got something else to do. He told witness he could not get on with Macdonald. Subsequently, when in company with McKirdy, Gillon said his creditors were pressing him, and as he (McKirdy) had no security for the debts of £l9O and £77, Gillon would make over his shares to him. Charles McKirdy, contractor, and one of the proprietors of the Evening Argus, said in October, 1876, witness obtained from Mr. Gillon the transfers produced. He owed witness £l9O, and also £77 on a dishonored bill Witness wanted to get plaintiff’s interest in the paper to secure himself, aud Gillon suggested that as he had been good to bim he would give him his two shares. It was distinctly agreed that witness should take Gillon’s two shares as security for the £l9O and £77- Kennedy Macdonald paid £250 a share for his interest, but the shares were not worth half that amount now. Mr. Saunders, another part proprietor of the paper, was present, and said that if the transfer would have the effect of putting Gillon oat he would not sign it. Witness answered that he wanted his security, and Mr. Gillou would be kept on as editor. He further stipulated that if he felt inclined to sell the shares he would let plaintiff know seven days’ previously, to give him an opportunity of purchasing. Joseph Saunders, contractor, said he was a shareholder in the Evening Argus. Witness signed the document produced (a transfer of the shares) in the Prince of Wales Hotel. On McKirdy asking witness to sign for the transfer, he said “ Mac, are you going to put Gillon out of the Argus.” He said no, he was simply buying his shares. Gillon then read the document, and remarked that it put him but of it altogether. McKirdy said he would stiff draw hi* screw as editor. Gillon stated that if it was known he had sold his shares it would ruin him and bring down his creditors on him. Witness and Mr. McKirdy both promised not to mention the matter. Witness told Gillou ho would sell him one of his shares for £125 ifhe liked, or would advance him the money to buy back his shares from McKirdy. Witness wished he had taken it. 1 ; Mr. Travers : Has the property depreciated? Witness ; Well, they have pretty well done on overdraft. I think from the day we started the . debt has gradually increased. I should likoi£l2s for the two shares that I hold. Gillon and a man named Humphreys afterwards proposed to lease tfio paper for £25 a week. ; Gross-examined ; As an excuse for getting a transfer of shares from Gillon, McKirdy said the bank was pressing him, and he wanted something for,; his 1 money. Witness -might have told one Elliott that the others were trying to “ euchre ” Gillon, and that he would not let them, and had offered Gillon the money to pay McKirdy.

Robert Kent gave evidence _ regardhu; tlm meetings of the Argus proprietors, and produced the minutes, which contained Gillon s name among the others as a proprietor. Witness did not look upon him as a co-partner. This terminated defendants’ case. Mr. Travers briefly addressed the jury for the defence, and .... Mr. Barton having been heard in reply, His Honor proceeded to sum up. _ If there was an agreement between the parties to repurchase, that would not make it a mortgage. He then reviewed the evidence which had been given. The jury retired at 4 o’clock, and returned into Court with their finding at 4.30. All the issues had already been admitted between the parties, except the following, on which they found as follows: . Q. Was the partnership with the plaintiff dissolved as from the 9th day of October, 1876, and did the plaintiff continue to have any interest in the partnership concern, or to be a partner therein ?—A. No, he only mortgaged his shares. Q. Was the said last-men tinned assignment to Charles McKirdy an absolute assignment, or by way of mortgage only ?—A. By way of mortgage only. Q. What damages has plaintiff sustained by reason of bis exclusion from his rights as a copartner ?—A. No evidence. Q. Did the defendants, or any, and which of them, wrongfully prevent the plaintiff from exercising his rights as a partner and managing partner of the said firm of. Gillon, Kent, and Waters, and if so, when ? —A. Yes ; the whole of the defendants on the 25th July, 1877, and up to the trial. The plaintiff will now have to move for_ a decree on the findings of the jury on the issues of fact raised in the action. The Court then adjourned until 10 o’clock on Monday next, when the common jury cases will be taken.