Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1259, 26 January 1883, Page 2

Mr Gillice, of Ormond, has given practical proof that hop growing could be made a great source of revenue to this district, and that the vine here produces a flower equal to any ever grown in Kent. The high prices now ranging in the English hop market, and the certainty that the extreme limit of dearness for that article has not yet been reached, is shown by the following remarks made by the writer of “Samples” in the “Mark Lane Express,” of 6th Nov. He says: —“Some large profits have been made this year on hops. I have heard of a case in which a small quantity was bought from the grower at £9 per cwt., re-sold to a merchant at £l5, and ultimately to a brewer at £25. Another parcel, bought in the first instance at £l5, was sold at £25, and again at £3O. It is supposed that this parcel would make £34 or £35 if they were in the market. Up to the present date prices of hope have about doubled. Some of us laughed at the fictitious price of the first pocket of hops, £5O per cwt.; but there is a possibility of the last pocket making as much as the first. I know of one grower who has a small quantity, which he says he shall hold until he can get £5O, and then he will part.” In the face of a reliable statement such as this, we are surprised that greater attention is not paid to an industry which, if well worked, must prove highly successful.

At the Drill shed last night a meeting of the Volunteers of the J Battery was held. The business brought before the meeting was to take the necessary steps under the new regulations for the proper enrolment of the corps. Lieut. Boylan, who was in the chair, gave a resume of what had transpired between Major Withers and himself at an interview they had held. A resolution was proposed by Mr Pavitt, and seconded by Mr Morrison to the effect that the Corps take service under the new regulations, in order to give them a trial for six months, contingent upon the Government carrying out the recommendations of Major Withers. There were 30 volunteers handed in their names for the purpose of enrolment, and ten names were handed in as being likely members. A gun drill will take place on Saturday evening next at 7 o’clock, prior to the decision being given for the Government ordnance firing. It is notified “ that persons wishing to join the Battery, not having received previous drill, must do so before the 31st inst., or otherwise they are not admissible, until the month of July, according to the New Regulations. Sir Robert George Wyndham Herbert, permanent Under-Secretary for the Colonies, now created a K.C.8., received his official training in Queensland. He accompanied Sir George Bowen to that colonj' on the inception of responsible government, and was made the first Premier. So popular was he that at one time he narrowly escaped being thrown into the river by an infuriated mob.

DISTRICT COURT, GISBORNE. In Chambers.—This Day.

[Before His Honor Judge Seth Smiti i.J His Honor granted a probate in the will of the late Henry Harris to Messrs. Ferguson, McKenzie, and Espie.

In Bankruptcy. Brown v. McQuarrie. Mr Nolan stated that the case had been settled out of Court.

In re C. D. Berry, Mr Kenny said that the debtor was a man who was known by almost every person in Gisborne, and his name was a household word. He had been a friend to a great many people who were now holding very good positions in Gisborne, and had for a considerable number of years past employed the largest number of workmen in or about the place, and not only here but in Napier and on. the East Coast. [The amount of money which has been passed through Mr Berry’s hands during the last nine years amounts to something like over £300,000]. He produced a statement of the losses which Mr Berry had sustained since the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank. The order of discharge was granted immediately. The case of Mr R. Cooper was settled out of Court. E. P. Joyce v. Graham and Kinross. Mr Kenny for plaintiff, Mr Brassey for defendant.

His Honor delivered the following judgment :—

This is an action brought to recover the sum of £l3O ss, being the principal and interest due on a bill of exchange. In the year 1877, when this bill was given, Duncan Fraser was carrying on the business of a sheep farmer, in partnership with the defendants in this action, but in his own individual name. Fraser had the sole management of the sheep farming business, his co-partners, Messrs Kinross and Graham, carrying on an independent business as merchants in Gisborne. In Deer., 1877, the firm of Duncan Fraser were indebted to Pitau, one of their landlords, for rent due in respect of the sheep farm, and according to the plaintiff’s evidence, the plaintiff, at Fraser’s request, supplied Pitau with goods. Fraser undertaking to stop their value out of the rent. The plaintiff then obtained Pitau’s signature to the bill now sued on, and about a month afterwards presented the bill to Fraser for acceptance. Fraser declined to accept, and alleged as his reason that Pitau was indebted to the firm, and the bill must therefore be held over for a time. No further presentment for acceptance for payment was made either to Fraser or to his copartners until the month of Dec., 1880. Although the matter appears to have been mentioned on several occasions, both to Fraser and to the defendant, Mr Graham, In 1879 misunderstandings arose between the members of the sheep-farming firm, and proceedings were taken for the settlement of the differences between them ; the nature of these proceedings is not in evidence, and is not material to the decision of this action. On December 31st, 1880, Fraser ultimately accepted the bill in the already cited, giving as his reason for so doing, “ I accepted it at last because I thought as difficulties had arisen it was better to settle with Joyce. In October, 1881, Fraser became bankrupt, and the plaintiff proved against Fraser’s estate for the amount of the bill and interest,

which proof, however, he afterwards withdrew.

The plaintiff in this action seeks to recover from plaintiff’s co-partners. In order to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, it is necessary that he should rebut two presumptions of law which are raised against him. 1. This being an association of persons for farming purposes prima facie there is no implied authority for one member of the partnership to negotiate bills of exchange so as to bind his co-partners. 2. The business being carried on in the name of an individual member of the firm, and the bill having been accepted in that name alone, the transaction must be presumed to have been entered by Fraser in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the firm. If this second point were the only one raised in this case, I should be inclined to say (I do not speak positively) that it ought to be decided in the plaintiff’s favor. The law on this point is laid down in the judgment of the C.P.D. in the Yorkshire Banking v. Beatson, a case relied on by both sides in argument, 48 L.J., 2 B, 428 in the following terms (p 432) :—“ln the last edition of Lindley on partnership, p. 342, the learned author lays down the law as follows ; ‘ Again persons may carry on business in partnership in the name of one of themselves, and if they do they will be liable on bills accepted by him in that name if it was in fact used to denote all the partners, but not otherwise. This does not mean that the liability of the firm depends simply upon the question whether the person accepting has in his own mind an intention of improperly making his partners liable on bills accepted for his own accommodation; the meaning is that the firm will be bound if the bill was given for the partnership purpose, or for what was intended to be a partnership purpose, and was not known to be otherwise by the person taking the Bill.” Now, in this case, I think that looking to all the circumstances of the transaction in

respect of which the bill was given, it must bo held to have been for a partnership purpose. It is quite true, as Mr Brassey contended, that the purposes of the partnership did not include the supply of goods to Natives, but on the other hand Fraser in suggesting or undertaking that the value of the goods supplied to Pitau, should be stopped out of the rent, purported to be acting on behalf of the firm, and the plaintiff when giving credit to Pitau relied upon the security of the money due from the firm to Pitau.

If, therefore, Fraser had authority to negotiate bills at all on behalf of the firm, I should be inclined to say that this bill was negotiated for a partnership purpose. But had hs any such authority ? Prims facie. No. This is a farming partnership, and therefore if any such authority existed, it must either have been express— of which there is no evidence—or implied from the special circumstances of the case. Now what evidence is there here from which such an authority ought to be implied ? Fraser, it is said, had been in the habit of drawing on Messrs Graham and Co. (t.e. the mercantile firm of which the. two defendants were the partners) for station accounts. This however, seems to me a very different thing from a general authority to negotiate bills.

Messrs Kinross and Graham were members of two independent firms, in the one they were the only members, in the other they were in partnership with a third party Mr Fraser. Advances no doubt had to be made from time to time to meet the current expenses of the sheep station, and as a matter of mutual convenience it was arranged that Fraser, who managed the sheep-station, should draw on the Gisborne firm for the amounts required. It would be a very wide, and I think, unwarranted assumption to hold that from that arrangement a general authority could be implied, and the same remarks applied to the banking account to which reference was made in evidence. Great stress has been laid upon certain admissions or supposed admissions, alleged to have been

made by Mr Graham, and also by Mr Goud.y, who as liquidator of the partnership estate would, I suppose, be competent to make admissions in some cases so as to bind the parties whom he represented. As to Mr Graham’s admissions what do they amount to ? The plaintiff says t hat he made a distinct promise to pay, but this as explained by Mr Graham nimself takes a very different, and I think, more pr< >bable complexion. He admits having said bte was afraid he was responsible, and if so, would rather pay than take the matter into < Court, which seems a prudent disposition on the part of a business man who prefers not to enter on a contest where he is sure to lose, but does not amount to an admission of liability. As to Mr Goudy’s statement, I see in them nothing more than the expression of a desire to settle the matter amicably. I do not think that they can be construed into such an admission as, in the absence of other evidence, could render the defendants’ liable in this action. Another circumstance must not be lost sight of. At the time this bill was accepted differences had arisen between the Attendants’ and Mr Fraser, and, therefore, even supposing that at the time this bill was first presented for acceptance, Fraser might ’have had authority to accept on behalf ofthe fit m. I doubt very much whether such authority could be held to subsist at the time of the acceptance. It is alleged in the plead ings that the plaintiff obtained this aceeptam in collusion with Fraser, Although it is not necessary for the decision of this case to exp tress any opinion on this point I cannot refrain from saying that the evidence does not seem t« h me to support the charge. The plaintiff wa bno doubt anxious to obtain the money that was due to him from somebody, and he adopted this course with the idea that by so doin.g the defendants would become liable. Although he was in error in that respect, and has failed in his object. I do not see anything in his conduct that is inconsistent with perfect bona tides on his part.

The plaintiff will be nonsuited with co sts, £8 9s.