CLAIM FOR BACK DEBTS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9610, 2 October 1909, Page 6

CLAIM FOR BACK DEBTS.

A MASTERTON PARTNERSHIP.

On Thursday at Wellington, his Honor Mr Justice Chapman, sitting without a jury, heard the case of the Cycle and Motor Supplies Company, Ltd., and E. Reynolds and Co.. Ltd., v. Harold Sinclair and David Gardiner Brown. Mr E. F. Hadfield appeared for the Motor Company, and Mr W. H. D. Bell for E. Reynolds and Co., Ltd., Mr C. A. Pownall appeared for the defendant David Gardiner Brown; the other defendant, Harold Sinclair, did not appear.

This was a Masterton case and it practically comprised two separate actions—Reynolds and Co, Ltd., and the Cycle and Motor Supplies Company, Ltd., were each suing Sinclair and Brown, who were cycle agents of Masterton, for accounts due to the plaintiff firms, and which it was contended by the defendant Brown, were sums in which Sinclair was indebted before the partnership commenced. That a partnership has now been dissolved. Brown defended the action because he claimed that the liability was Sinclair's. The case for plaintiffs was that their accounts were sent in monthly to Brown and Sinclair, and in them was incorporated the indebtedness uf Sinclair, who previously had business dealings with the plaintiffs; and it was contended that plaintiffs were entitled to carry this sum forward into the account of the partnership of Sinclair and Brown. The company's claim was for £37 10s on four promissory notes of equal value, and Reynolds and Company's claim was for £243 14s 4d and interest.

Plaintiffs contended that Brown had entered into partnership with Sinclair in consideration of the continuance of the supply of bicycles and accessories by plaintiffs on credit, and therefore he had accepted a juint and several liability with Sin clair in respect of the goods sold and delivered by plaintiffs to Sinclair prior to the commencement of the partnership.

Defendant Brown's contention was that he had received no benefit from the business at all and that he had paid off all the indebtedness for which he was liable. He had put £SOO into the partnership, but he had no idea that Sinclair's previous indebtedness would be charged against the partnership;, he was under the impression that he and Sinclair were starting in business afresh. After the dissolution of the partnersip he called in an accountant, and then, for the first time, learned that Sinclair's debts were being charged against the partnership.

His Honor having heard the evidence and counsel in argument, reserved his decision.—"New Zealand Times."