R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2978, 16 August 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-THURSDAY.

(Before S. Von Sturmer, 8.M.) DRUNK AND DISORDERLY.

T. K. Jacobsen, commonly known, as "Truo Blue" was oharged with being drunk and disorderly and lined 203 or 48 hours imprisonment with hard labor. A first offender was fined 5s or six hours imprisonment.

- CIVII CASES, Magnus Neilsen v, Frederick Jagerliorn.—Debt £3 8s 9d, Mr Beard for plaintiff, Judgment was confessed, and costs allowed in full 30s Gd in consequence of no notice boing given to plaintiff. An order was made tor payment at tho rate of 20s per month. L.J. Hooper v. D. Spring, Debt £2 Gs lid. Order made for payraont in two months with costs 6s. AV. Parkor v. R. Aitken. Debt £3 9s rent. No appearance of . defendant, Judgment for amount and costs 6s. G, S. W.. Dalrymple v. J. Livingstone. Claim £29, commißsion, Mr Skipper for,

plaintiff;' Mr' Bunny for defendant. Adjourned to allow of the Bill of particulars being amended, The costs of the Adjournment were allowed against the plaintiff. : . E. M. Galloway v Arthur, Philips, claim W6a Bd, Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Board for defendant, '. For the defence Mr Beard put in a ploaof general denial. Plaintiff deposed he paid,defendant the yarious amounts, .making up, the sum claimed. The sums were advanced on tho private account of defendant, and he lmd applied for the amount which had not boon paid. Cross-examined by Mr Beard Went into partnership May Ist with defendant for a poriod of six months subject to such partnership being determined by either party giving notice. Phillips gave stock-in-trade, took &o, plaintiff contributed £2OO as his' sliare. He paid it into the bank in various sums. Accounts were to be kept of all transactions, Cheques ivero to be signed by both parties. The part contributed by each was to be handed back on the determination of the partnership and profits divided. There were no profits, The cheque £l3 odd was paid by the firm. Mr Beard said ho proposed showing the plaintiff, hud never contributed his sharo of the money. Ho submitted the plaintiff could not sue his partner. .; The monies claimed wore part of the partnership money. " ; :/V

The Court said thero wore some items in the claim' bofore the Ist May. Mr Beard said tlie partnership, actually- existed prior to the Ist May and the monies' were paid by the firm. The Supreme Court wasthe proper place for the action. Ho quoted cases in support and said plaintiff had no right whatever to sue his co-partner.- : A

■ In answor to Mr Beard, plaintiff stated lie was a partner in tho bacon business from the 20th March and a partnepin the wliolo business from the Ist May. !fhe arrangement' made was to place £2OO to the credit of the firm, to be drawn out as required. Could not say whether monies advanced prior to IstlMay was to be included. The bank account was first opened on March 22nd, when plaintiff paid into the credit of tho hrm £75. Subsequently Seeing that the estate was going to waste ho gave notice to dissolve which was agreed to by defendant mid published m the local papers. Had asked for a statement, to be made out by defondant, but this had not been done satisfactorily.

Defendant gave evidence as to his entering into partnership with Galloway ill March ill tho wholesale department). Cortam monies wore then advanced to witness and paid out of the firms account. In May, plaintiff went in as a partner of the whole business, retail nnd wholesale, advancing £2OO as his share in tho concern. Plaintiff gavo notico to dissolvo on tho Ist of August, his demands being so unreasonable that he handed over tho whole estate to plaintiff, and wont out of tho business without a penny. To Mr BurinyAgreed to a notification of dissolution being advertised. His stock was worth, prior to the partnership, over £25. Witness contributed stock-in-•trade, and Galloway the cash, biiice the dissolution he had neither paid up or collected accounts.

fioptymg to Mr Beard, witness stated that plaintiff know tho value of his stock-in-trade prior to entering into partnership in May. !

To his WorehipWas allowed 20a a week for labor, plaintiff not assisting in the businoss any more than being a sleeping partner. The books were kept by lum (witness). Overtures to enter into partnership first omanated from the plaintiff. Held out no inducements other than saying the business was a profitable ouo. Considered the £27-Bs 8d for which lie was niw aued wiped out when Galloway entered into partnership in May. His Worship reserved judgmont till Friday morning, tho 24th inst., -at 11 o'clock. The Court then adjourned.