CHARLESTON.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 858, 7 September 1871, Page 2

CHARLESTON.

(PEOM OUB OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

A case which created considerable interest came before our local Bench on Monday last, in which the plaintiff, a man named Brook, until recentlycarrying on business as a dairyman, Bued Charles Eobertson, a pastry cook, for the sum of £IOO, being the latter's proportion of the purchase money for the Casino de Venise. Mr Shapter appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Pitt defended. The defence was that the plaintiff had agreed to buy the Casino de Venice, and pay the entire purchase money, as a set-off to the services to be rendered by the defendant, who is reputed to be a first-class tradesman. A nonsuit point was also raised, that the case could not be tried before the Resident Magistrate's Court, as the plaintiff and defendant were partners. It was agreed, however, that evidence should be taken, and that the point should stand over, It appeared from the evidence that a publican named Jolliffe and a jeweller named Dietz occupied the building for which they paid £3 per week rental. In July the plaintiff purchased the Casino from a publican named Nahr for £2OO, and the sale note was made out in the names of the plaintiff and the defendant, and it was agreed between them that they should go into business together as pastry cooks at the expiration of Jolliffe's lease, which would take placo on January 12th, 1872. Brook stated that he paid the money on the understanding that Robertson would repay the sum, the latter stating that he was unable to spare the sum.at that time from his business. After a long hearing, his Worship stated that the Bench had a difficulty in reconciling the conflicting evidence of the two parties. The facts of the case were that the sale note was made out by Nahr

to both plaintiff and defendant; that defendant paid the deposit money, £2, at the request of the plaintiff, which was afterwards returned to hiin, and that Brook paid the whole of the purchase money, £200; that the sale was made saving the tenancy of two parties, Bietz and Jolliffo, at present in occupation, and paying £3 per week rent, such tenancy terminating on the 12th of January next, when, by a verbal arrangement both plaintiff and defendant were to commence business together as restaurant-keepers and confectioners; that defendant has collected and holds aome £l2 or £l3 for rent. In deciding this case "we must avail ourselves of the provisions of the 47th section of the Resident' Magistrate's Act, and ' give such judgment between the parties as shall be consistent with equity and good con. conscience.' we think, therefore, the probabilities are against the defendant's version of the matter. It does not seem probi.b'e that, for the prospective advantage of the defendant's skill in a partnership, to commence five months hence, the plaintiff would give the defendant an unconditional half share in the building purchased by him, and admit him at once into a participation of the rents accruing. The defendant might pos* sibly die before the date of the partnership was to commence, and then of what use would his skill be to the plaintiff. The Bench would, therefore, make an order that defendant pay into the Court, on account of the plaintiff, the sum of £IOO, within fourteen days, failing which the building will become the absolute property of the plaintiff."

In the "Warden's Court some few applications were disposed of, and the Warden recommended the grant of a gold mining lease of 8 acres, 2 roods, 8 perches, applied for by R. C. Parker and others.