A DISPUTED PARTNERSHIP.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81894, 27 November 1906, Page 2

A DISPUTED PARTNERSHIP.

~,' n '•| la su ''cl- Court Stratford 0 « ay, Uilu iluse, (Tataraimaka, bued \\il.iam 1 immas Dale (Sirati | k ' r 2So < amount alleged to be duo by delendant. Mr Hughes (New Ijmoutn) Willi Air Spoucu appeared lor the plaintiff, and Mr VV. G. Malono tor defendant. Plaintiffs statement, of the case, outlined by his solicitor, al.egcd that defendant, in Urlwl M 9 9' " fil ' eCd t0 bu y tvom Kobcit Dixon, 140 acres of land 011 lie Opuuake Road, near Stratford nln^lff l 1 0" r^ aUy aßleCd bulweefl plaint ft (jnd defendant, that although the said jjutonase was for their joint beneiu, the sa id land should be bought in the name of the defendant a;onu, and be transferred 10 the defendant, which was accordingly done. 011 or about. August i!*jy, plaintiff paid to defendant, at '•is request, the sum of /Jbu towards the purchase of ihe land. On or about November; ,Sy o , plaintiff I)a id to defendant, at lus request tne furtier suin of in connection with the purchase of the said land. 0.1 or about October lSgg, plaintiff, witli Ins wife and family, went ami resided 011 the said land, and took with hi m l,ls Durham Road farm, 25 c>. ,vs, lursn:, and farming implement*. tkury utensils, e ; c , and assises by Ins wife, me praiutrtf farmed he Mid land as a daily f aim in p tnership with defendair. Defendant, being engaged on contract work, d.d 110b go to reside on 'lie said farm until December, ISOO rom October, ißy o , until about October, igoo, plaintiff lived 011 the 'aim and supplied milk l 0 the LowgarWi Dairy factory, and received Irom the factory the sum of 2 iO 1517- Out of this amount, plaintiff paid all the debts and current expenses of the farm, and divided the ba - ante with defendant. In or about October, igoo, it was verbally agreed between plaintiff and defendant that he pan mush ip should terminate, the land to be divided equally. A fence «as creeled, divuli„« the fan,, two lauiis of news each, ami it

, was . : !S' R 'C<l that plaintiff should erect ' ' US p - art il , house ut the value of no I'lainiiff erected !\ 0 costing' about £ IO O, and relcltti ther ° 111 accordance with the Agreement, Th„ live stock wa , di . vide,| between tli c plaintiff a „d deK'lulaiit.-. Aboui Oct<ii was vei-bully between plainjff and ck'lcndant that plaintiff ni V e up ; of his 70 acres to defcnitant, on consideration that defendant u-pay tlie various sums of moiicv iffiff . an i " 1B fnrm by I,lailliirf - Evidrruv uas fti v c„ bv plaintiff. l l'innah kluse, wife of plaintiff, he dole,,,[ant, in his evidence slated •.if.lann and factory >h«n*,. wc i c bi'uglit in hi. s namo . H US( , aKk „| | vi[l] d lie cou d lease tlic (--round and pm a eotuig,. 011 ii. Ay reed to lease | I use 70 acres at ~/ per acre, || U so to pay all rates and taxes. || e anrced to this. Witness paid for all mateWhen I lose re„olved to bin Harris 'l'ai 111 lie asked witness if |,« would k-a-e him 2u acres out of f l lr

Mo.,fw 12 months. Witness agrcw! ' u e same terms as lie had || K , - v acres. paid witness no rent. !• urther evidence was heard, aad after counsel f,,,- lj,,t h sid. ' , slated their eases Jli- V, on , , .I.>/•!/]„ 1.. l-,n • •' " Miitl he f'," l! ' d :1 ntr.C 0,1 what his .MiiiS'mcnl should res;. It would ie-t M ? 'he K'eiioral lii'iul of the evidence ' I each side. Al'ic) lvvicwio.H' tl. r U'iihnee, His 1 lonnr said that phiintift had made die best case, and lie «;:ive judii'mciil for amount claimed, ./..21-10, due under tl'e agreement widiout prejudice to the plaintiff's ri fi ht In sue for the furl her sum of ifv'i claimed 011 other items. The defendant wou'd be 11, insured as to his set-off for ,£337 fjl-,. The plaintiff to have costs as pey. scale, and witnessc' expones. The Court ordered that all exhibits bo retained in Court until there is a further order,—Abridged from Stratford I Posti