R. M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 2326, 21 June 1886, Page 2

R. M. COURT.

MASTERTON MONDAY,

; r .. (Before H. A. Stratford, R.M.) FOUL CHIAINIES. John Prenter and S. Petersen wer® firied-5s each for allowing their ehifnniv to becomeifoul,; •' ' CIVIL CASES. ' John Carrv Henry Watkins.—Debt £4 for four weeks board and residence. Judgment for amount and costs. ..W./PrangnelT v Robert Aitken.—Debt 7s. for, load ot" firewood. Judgment' for amount and costs. James Jones v James Burke. Debt . £SB ss. 7d fur goods supplied, and including- a dishonored promissory note. ' Mr Beard appeared for Plaintiff Mr Bunny for Defendant The plaintiff stated that the amount owing was for goods supplied to Messrs Parker and Burke, contractors. In answer to a letter -sent, defendant came and gave a promissory note (since dishonored) on account of the goods supplied to ensure a further supply of goods. The sum of £2O was paid to Mr Shute on account of the yoods since the promissory note was given. Mr Bunnv contended that Messrs Shute and Jones should have been plaintiffs and raised the point that the plaintiffs were not present. Mr Beard in answer said the partnership had been dissolved and that the plaintiff was the actual assignee; His .Worship ruled that the bill of particulars should have Set forth the position of the plaintiff in the case, and Mr Beard amended the bill showing his client, as sole assiguee to the late firm. Plaintiff continued, Burke paid LI on account, on September sth, 1883. The ■goods' were sometimes delivered to the camp and sometimes Parker or Burke or their men came for the goods. Had applied , to both Parker and Burke for payment. The reason he sued Burke was that he had given the promissory note and . promised to see the amount paved.- He had been given to understand by "both- Parfter and Burke that they were partners. When Burke gave the promissory note he said that umesß they had more goods they would be ruined. A of dissolution of partnership was put in, but His Worship rejected it, as it was drawn out since the suit commenced. Plaintiff was non-suited on the ground that his partner should have joined in the action, as His Worship ruled that they •were partners up to the time the deed was executed. G-. A. Northcroft v. G. S W. Dalrymple.—Claim for the removal of a fence from certain lands the property of the. plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs L2 16s 6d.