WARDEN'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 339, 24 October 1866, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

(Before C. C. Schaw, Esq., Warden.)

Tuesday, October 23.

Reeves v. Taggart. — In this ca--e the plaintiff disputed the right of defendant to register, in his name alone, Section 220, in Sewell street, as he (plaintiff) claimed a sharu in the ground, the defendant and himself being co-partners in the Bonded Store erected up\m it. There wus no * written agreement to support his claim, but the business had alwajs been carried*- on in their joint names, and he had paid an amount equal to that advanced by the defendant towards the erection of the store. JPLuntiff produced a bill for- material provided by defendant, the half of which, LB9 9s 9*l, he (plaintiff) had~ paid for. The bill was receipted by defendant, who therein admitted to co-partnership. Defendant, in support of his chum, ' stated that plaintiff aiid himself had entered into partnership to build the Bond, and after it was completed, agreed to purchase, betwreu them, un adjoining section, on which now stood the Free store. Plaintiff conducted the negotiation for this ground, and eventually bought it from the then owner, Mr Thomas Keniiok ; but instead of drawing a cheque for the amount upon their joint balance at the Bunk, he paid for it out of his private 'funds, a faqt which he (the defendant) was not aware of for some time afterwards. Plaintiff then refused $o admit his ?ighs as a cQ-p>rtr»er, and m retaliation he

share in tbe section on which stood the bonded store. The Warden, in giving judgment, said that the case was very clear, us the receipted bill signed by defendant was proof that he admitted the right of plaintiff as a partner. The verdict would go in plaintiff's favor, and Mr Browninj,', the surveyor,- would receive instructions to register the section in bodi names.

Tttggwt v. lieeves. — This action arose out of the preceding one, the jilaintiff claiming a share in the section No. 226, on which stood their free store,. The evidence adduced was 4 mere recapitulation of that given in the former case. The defendant, however, pr>ved that he bought jhe land; and paid for it out of his.private funds, and afterwards built the free store, towards the erection of which defendant 1 * had not contributed one penny. The defendant swore that Mr Reeves had acknowledged him as a co-partner in tbe ! ground, and could bring forward proof to that effect. He applied for an adjournment for the production of an important wiim-ds (Mr Harper) then absent in the p.s. Bruce. The Warden allowed the application, and adjourned the case until Friday next. Louisson v. Turner. — No appearance of defendant. Verdict by default