PATEA R.M. COURT.

Patea Mail, 28 June 1882, Page 3

PATEA R.M. COURT.

Tuesday, before Mr Wray, R.M. DISHONORED BILL.—A POINT OF LAW. Stewart and Co,, Wellington, sued Prouse Brothers for the amount of a dishonored bill, £29 9s, Bd. The bill was drawn in favor of Prouae and Howe, as partners in the Kakaramea boiling-down works (lately burned down), and wris signed “ Prouse Brothers.” The bill was paidtoStewart and Coy, who presented it for payment at the bank of N.S. W., and there not being sufficient funds to the credit of Prouse Brothers’ account, the bill was dishonored.

. Mr Hamerton frppoared for defendants, and contended that there was nothing to show who signed the bill, nor whether Prouse Brothers were in partnership when the bill was signed. Mr Adams, for plaintiffs, argued that it was not necessary to prove the partnership ; that the bill 1 purported to be a partnership transaction, and that where a bill is signed by partners, it is not necessary to give formal proof of partnership. Such proof might be impossible in seeing on a foreign bill. The Bench reserved its decision.

SHIRKING A DEBT. , V ■ V " V Mackenzie v. M ’Lean was an application on a judgment summons for £ll, money lent. The defendant is a road contractor at Wanganui, arid his letter offered 30s a month. Plaintiff asked for more J Ordered to pay in two instalments within a month.

CROSS CLAIMS—A CURIOUS CASE. P. O . Gowland v. Felix O’S M’Carthy was a claim for £5 10s 7d, butcher’s meat supplied nearly two years ago. A set-off for money lent was pleaded against the claim, arid this involved two questions of law, namely (1) whether a debt over £IOO can be pleaded as a set-off in this Court, by showing a payment in reduction of the amount below £IOO ; also (2) whether the £IOO was lent to Gowland and Adamson as. partners in a butchen*, or to Adamson only, who had become a bankrupt after the partnership was dissolved. Mr Hamerton appeared for plaintiff, Mr Barton for defendant.

Mr Hamerton said : I take exception to the .set-off as being over £IOO, and not within the jurisdiction of this Court. Mr Barton argued that a payment of £3O made by Adamson when dissolving the partnership was in reduction of M’Cartby’s claim against the partnership, and was not Adamson’s separate affair. Magistrate, after argument, decided to hear evidence as to the nature of the debt.

.J. Adamson, formerly partner with P. 0. Gowland, said : I remember money being borrowed to start the firm. £IOO was promised, and £SO was got from Mr M’Carlby. Mr Gowland and Mr M’Oarthy both told, me that M’Carthy would lend us £IOO to start the partnership. It was lent to start the firm. One night in Odgers’s hotel I told Gowland I did not like starting in business, because if there was any mistake in the business I should not be able to pay M’Carthy back. I got the first £6O from M’Carthy, and we banked it together to the credit of the partnership account. After we had started two months, Mr Gowland said I had better go and get the other £SO. I did get it, and gave it him to put into the partnership account. On dissolving partnership, the arbitrators awarded to me £36 as my share, and I got a cheque for that amount. I did not pay M’Carthy, but I directed one arbitrator to give £3O to Mr M’Cartby. That was a payment for myself, after the partnership was dissolved. It was on account of the £IOO that we had got. Cross-examined ; The £IOO was paid to start me as partner with Mr Gowland. He put in £2OO against £IOO promised for me. He asked me to start with him. I don’t remember him saying he would start without me. I understood the shares of the partners were to be equal, but the arbitrators awarded me only one-third against Gowland’s two-thirds. We did not commence business till after I got the first £SO. Mr M'Cartby opposed my application for discharge, after my bankruptcy, but he did not attend any meeting of toy creditors.

E, -examined : Hides - and skins were supplied by the firm to Mr McCarthy. Mrs McCarthy said ; Mr Qowland stopped at our private house some weeks, until he started in the butchery. He told Mr McCarthy he was hard pushed and wanted some money to start in business. Mr McCarthy said he would try to lend him £IOO. Mr Gowland thanked him very much, and said he would repay him with the first money he got, or he would let him have hides and skins. Mr McCarthy said they would be the same to him as money. I wrote two cheques for £SO each at different times, and I understood they were the £IOO which was to start the butchery business. Cross-examined ; Mr Gowland stayed seven or eight weeks at our house as a friend, before starting the butchery, and we made no charge. My husband told me to draw out the cheque on each occasion and hand it to Mr Adamson for Mr Gowland. Re-examined ; If Mr Gowland had called for the cheque, I should have made it out to him.

F. O’S. M’Cartly, the defendant, said : Having learnt by letter that Mr Gowland had gone through the Court at Nelson and was very hard up, I placed a room in m 3' bouse at his disposal, and promised to lend him £IOO to start him in business. When Adamson came for the first cheque, after starting in business as partners, he said Gowland bad sent him for the money. I gave him a cheque for £SO on two occasions. They were to repay me with skins. All the entries in Mr Gowland’s bill for skins, hides, and fat should be 1 Gowland, Adamson, and Co., and not P. C. Qowland, as I was dealing , with the firm. I was also getting butcher’s meat from the firm at that tiirie. I paid two cheques of £2O each to the firm for those things because I was told they were pressed for money. Mr Qowland had given me a verbal guarantee to supply skins and hides to my fellmongery, but when he got ray money he bought skins elsewhere with it. Mr Qowland offered me, a promissory note for the £IOO, about two months after going into partnership. I sent a bill to the firm for the two £6O lent, as I heard they were going to dissolve. After the dissolution I sent the claim in again when Mr Gowland' advertised for claims against the estate, but he laughed at me for. doing so. When Adamson failed, I did not claim on his estate because I looked to the firm as responsible. Mr Hamerton told me I should get my £IOO all right from the firm. Cross - examined : I never spoke to Adamson about the £IOO before the partnership commenced. H. Chadwick produced the written inward made as between the partners in the butchery ; awarding Adamson £36 in cash, and Gowland to take the business with all accounts. Qowland had put £2OO into the business, and the arbitrators understood that Adamson borrowed £IOO from McCarthy as his share to Start the business. On that proportion their award was based.

Mr Barton contended that if the money was lent to start the business, it was not a separate loan to Adamson, but a debt for which the partners were liable jointly and severally.

Mr Hamerton admitted that view of the law, but contended that the debt was Adamson’s separate affair ; that the money was lent to one partner and not to both ; and that therefore the other partner could not be made liable for a private transaction.

Magistrate : It seems to me that this £IOO claim, is not a subject for a set-off against the plaintiff’s claim in this action, l am of opinion that the money was lent to Adamson. I would not say so positively : I should prefer to have other evidence on the point. Adamson’s evidence seems to favor that construction. It would be better if this.were brought as a separate action.

Mr Barton : Upon that view of the case, I elect to be non-suited as to the sot off, in order that the set-off may be gone into fully on its merits. I will consent to a verdict for the plaintiff’s claim, £5 10s 7s.

Verdict for plaintiff, with costs.

Mr M’Cartby : This is the treatment 1 get for doing a good turn. I had to borrow that £IOO from the bank at the time to start these men in business.

Magistrate I cannot hear any statement from you. Mr M’Carthy ; Mr Hamerton told me himself that my £IOO would be all right, that he would would get it for me. The Court closed.