PARTNERSHIP ALLEGED.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 105, 4 May 1923, Page 5

PARTNERSHIP ALLEGED.

IN A CONTRACTING FIRM. CLAIM FOR PROFITS. An action claiming the balance of wages during a period, and a share in a partnership " profit during a. further period, was brought by Douglas Le Roy Gordon (Mr. E. BlomfieJd), of Auckland, against .lames Mays (Mr. McVeagh), contractor, and the executors of Samuel Gordon (deceased), (Mr. J. Alexander), at the Supreme Court, before Mr. .Justice Stringer, this morning. Mr. Blomfield, in opening the case, ex- ! plained that the action extended over a I long time. The claim was in two parts. Jln the first period it was claimed that the plaintiff was working for the linn of Mays and Gordon, at a wage of C> a week and ton per cent of the profits. .Subsequently, plaintiff was given a third share in the profits. The action was brought to recover a balance of wages at the taking of accounts in the first portion, and also a share in the profits at the second. The defence, boiled down, was a denial that there was an agreement to pay more than £3 a week. Plaintiff, in evidence, said the deceased .Samuel Gordon was his father. Jn August. 1000, witness commenced working with thp firm of Mays and Gordon. He remained with them till April. 1002. when lie went to the Waihi Gold Mining Company. Tn ISIOti he reI turned to the firm, taking charge of a (gang of men pipe-laying and excavating, and from then <m lie held a supervising I position, and helped to draw up plana and contracts for the firm. In 1010, prior to leaving for the front, lie had [an interview at Wellington with both partners (Mays and plaintiffs father), land it was agreed that lie should receive j one-third of any profits derived during his absence. He returned in July, 101.0. and ascertained that in the interval there had been practically no profits. He returned to the firm'in September. 1919, under an arrangement (made with his father) of a third share in the profits. His Honor: You mean a full partner: the linn to consist of -Mays, your father and yourself. I Witness: Yes. My father said he j had made it clear with Mr. Mays. His Honor: That was the same footing as had been arranged when you left for the front?— Yes. 11l 1020 witness declined to enter into any further works until his position had been legally defined. It was agreed this would be done on the completion of a i work in hand—Woodside Road contract j Plaintiff took Mays to his father's house, and it was agreed that his position should be defined in writing. Also that plaintiff should go into the accounts and draw up the balance of the amount owing to him. Two days" later his father handed him the agreement (produced) in writing. His Honor, on inspecting this, a?ked plaintiff why he did not get it put into I legal shape. j Witness: I left it to the firm. I Hi* Honor: When you found they did I not uo so, why did yon not take further steps-; Witness: 1 was busy with additional ! contracts. i Mr. MeVoagh produced a copy of an income tax return in witness , handwriting, in which witness did not set himI self out. as a partner in the firm, but a; ■ a •■clerk." Witness could not explain tc I his Honor why this was so. I Witness attributed his negligence tc i have the agreement (written hv hit j father) put into a legal document, t< J oversight and neglect. Witness waf i further cross-examined by Mr. McYeagr j why he look no steps to recover a shan jin the proiits of work done during hi> i absence. Eventually, lie admitted t< ■ 1 Ins Honor that there was nothing ii ;! these contracts, if anything, there wa; . I a <lel)it against him. ■| His Honor: That may account foi rjyou taking no steps to ascertain yon; . share. I He did not press for his ten p,-r con ; share of proiits between 1012 and !!)!.■> , I because ho was expecting a dissolutioi ; j and he intended to join his father. I The case is proceeding.