R.M. COURT.
MASTERTON—SATURDAY,
■ Judgment waq given in the case it. M. G&Htroy v. A. Phillips;: by S. p,-Bt\U'iner l K.MI this morning follows In tliis case'purges we partners;, in a - ;business, fea plaintiff advancing iZQfh oil aooouut of tjie partnership mid tlitf defendant the ut.eriails l aud toola of tho tnitfo" value about £BO, The defendant was to conduct the business ami to receive £1 per pd |a ; l(
. profits,' the'plaintiff lo 'receive He .balance,, This, had. tbe busines been ovcii moderately ■ bcfeessful, would have been an excellent 'investment -fa?■ tbe plaintiff. ; t During the partuor. shipj ll6fehdaiit, witli 'the ■' consent of .the. plaintiff,..obtained certain partnotpay -his", private debts. The business not provjug a' success, on the Ist,'August 1888, an agreement was enteredinlo-between 'the patties to close the partnership, and had the terms of thjs agreement .been earned out; the plaintiff would liave been reimbursed "iiTfull"tlf^'amount'paid by him iu'tp;tbe partnership} and the Court is satisfied that tiiis case would not have been brought into Court.-vjn tho agreemer%iere is jio ( of the defendant being lii'any way considered, ius;iar;as, thej ( value of his tools, etc., wero concerned. Now, wheuii partnership is entered into the partners, must.have thfilpes as well as tiie profits. lam or opinion that wheiiithis agreement to wind up tho partnership was signed, it was. intended to release the defendant from all fuctlier^jaiffls,'?iid l consider that the 1 plaintiff's prOpoi! course' would be to enforce the terms of the agreement. It will be observed also that the plaintiff' lite : sued : 'iii' : 'hfi'-'own name and not as a member of the late firm Phillips tCo; also that in the agreement of \lissolutitmdf\)artuership the defendant is the person authorised to collect' the.'debts dub to the late firm, and not the present plaintiff, Tho plaintiff is therefore nonsuited with" costs L2 2s solicitorsifee7T ■f; ; • DISTRICT COURT.
MASTERTON-FRIDAY.
' Before. Judge Davy.
. Mck y Cm (Cpntnmed). After evidence for the deface lmd heard the Jury retired 'and after being locked up for.an hour and a half, returned with a verdict for tiief plaintiff for the sum of £l2, balance of rent aud £8 claim for rolling acres of land.
The question of coatg was argued this -(Saturday). morning by Counsel, His Honor decided to hold oyer the question of costs.
In the case Ufficial Assignee -V Hull judgment wns'aiao held over. >.l This concluded the business of the Court,
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WDT18880825.2.11
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2986, 25 August 1888, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
394R.M. COURT. Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2986, 25 August 1888, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.