CROWN MINISTER SUED

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1037, 30 July 1930, Page 11

CROWN MINISTER SUED

DEBT OF PARTNERSHIP GUARANTEED BANK ACCOUNT Special to THE SUX WHANG ARE!, Tuesday. Holding that the Hon. A. J. Murdoch was In the position of a partner, Mr. G. N. Morris, in a reserved Judgment given in the Magistrate's Court today, gave judgment against the Minister for £lll 5s 5d and costs £l9 9s. The case was one in which John Burns and Company, Limited, sued W. Waring and the Hon. A. J. Murdoch, for goods supplied by the plaintiff ! company between July 19, 1926, and January 28. 1927. The action was not defended by i Mr. Waring, and judgment was en- j tered against him by default. The magistrate said that the supply of the goods was admitted and the question in dispute was whether a partnership existed between the defendants during the period covered by the claim. It was common ground that Mr. Murdoch guaranteed Mr. Waring's bank account up to £7OO. and received in return one-third of the net profits from Mr. Waring's business, hut this arrangement was not put into writing. Section 15 of the Partnership Act. 1908, stated that in determining whether a partnership existed regard should bo had to the following rules: “The receipt by a person of a share in the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner ' in the business, but the receipt of such share, or of a payment contingent on or varying with the profits of a business does not in itself make • him a partner in the business and in j particular the advance of money by i way of loan to a person engaged or ; about to engage in any business, on j a contract with that person that the \ lender shall receive a rate of iuterest varying with the profits, or shall receive a share of the profits arising from carrying on the business, does not in itself make the lender a partner with the person or persons carrying on the business or liable as such, provided that the contract is in writing and signed by or on behalf of all the parties thereto.’’ It could not be denied there had I been an advance by way of loan, the ' magistrate said. The actual cash 1 came in the first case from the bank. ] hut Mr. Murdoch was liable in case of a failure to repay and, therefore, re- j ceived the corresponding benefit of i the share of profits. The sharing of profits being prima facie evidence of partnership the onus was on Mr. Murdoch to show that there was no partnership. The conduct of Mr. Waring indicated that he at least thought he was entering into a partnership. . The magistrate held that Mr. Murdoch had not discharged this onus, and judgment must be for plaintiff.