RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume VIII, Issue 1158, 13 March 1874, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

(Before Joseph Giies. Esq., R.M.) Tuesday, March 10. OTYlii CASES. J. C. Reid v. Brinckley and Watkius. Claim for £l2, balance due for work and labor. Mr R. Stout for plaintiff, and Mr Fisher fur defendants. Brinckley and Watkinshad contracted under tender with Dr Thorpe for felling and clearing timber at tho Orawaiti, and subsequently arranged with Reid to do part of the work, but had not made full settlement with him ; maintaining that a partnership had been entered into and that his share was contingent on the profits made on the entire contract, and that such share had been paid him. In evidence plaintiff said that ho had engaged to do a certain amount of work for the third of the profit on a contract defendants had made with Dr Thorpe. He worked some 17 days, and they paid him £5 on account, promising tho balance when they had finished the work then on hand. At the time plaintiff had first commenced working with defendants they had already cleared some of the ground, and plaintiff agreed with them that £3 should be deducted for such work and he would share with them in the balance of the contract mouey r . Mr Fisher asked for a nonsuit on the plea that Reid, sharing in the profits, was partner with Brinckley and "Watkins, and that if tho original contract had been made with* a principal from whom payment could not have been obtained, Reid would have had no claim on defendants but must have borne the loss with them.

Mr Stout objected to the plea that division of profits amounted to partnership. The arrangement between the parties being merely a way deyised to arrive at the amount of wages to be paid JEieid, he taking part of the work and part of the risk, but not thereby becoming a partner any more than a clerk or other servant, obtaining commission on the business of his employer, could be held as a partner. The bench decided to hear evidence of defendants before ruling on question of partnership. Lengthy evidence and cross-examina tion ensued, the defendants admitting that Reid had never seen the original agreement with Dr Thorpe, nor had been made acquainted with alterations in the terms of such agreement. Ultimately the bench disallowed the plea of partnership, but gave judgment for defendants, considering that the money he had already received represented his share of profit on the work performed. A few other cases of no public importance were disposed of.