BUSHMEN AT LAW.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 219, 15 September 1924, Page 7

BUSHMEN AT LAW.

DISPUTE AS TO PARTNERSHIP. A DECLARATION SOUGHT. An application for an order for taking accounts and a. declaration that a partnership existed in connection with bush-felling work at Kaukapakapa was heard in the Supreme Court to-day, Mr. Justice Herdman being on the Bench. Leslie Franci3 Johnstone, bushiTAn, of Dargaville, for whom Mr. Richmond appeared, sought a declaration that a partnership existed between himself and Bartl Hendl (Mr. Goulding), bush contractor, of Dargaville. He also asked that accounts be taken, and that he be paid the amount found to be due to him, with interest at 8 per cent. The allegation on which plaintiff' relied was that in April, 1923, he and defendant entered into a verbal contract, at Donnelly's Crossing, just north of Dargaville. Under this contract the parties were to supply the Public ■Works Department with kauri rikas at 'a price fixed by the Department. Mr. Richmond stated that the evidence would show that' plaintiiT was to receive 40 per cent of the pro'its, and defendant, who supplied horses for the job, 60 per cnt. If it should be found that a partnership did not exist plaintiff claimed alternatively that the intention was that be should receive remuneration on the same basis, receiving 40 per ccTit of the profits, although engaged as a servant. Plaintiff did not contribute any capital. Tn a previous partnership with defendant, plaintiff had lost all his capital. Prior to the present alleged partnership defendant told plaintiff that he had a contract to supply 1000 kauri rikas to the Public Works Department. An agreement was entered into, and defendant paid plaintiff £60 ].">/- for past services. The parties went on with the contract, and plaintiff worked constantly during April, being in charge of the operation of getting out the rikas and making roads. Witnesses would say that he woTkod "like three men/ A man did not do that for £5 a week, said Mr. Richmond. During a period of six week* the Public Works Department paid a total of £1666. Defendant paid plaintiff £78 hefore the contract ended, but plaintiff . would say that defendant owed him £13 ].">/ for previous wages not connected with the contract. Later, defendant offered him £7 in full settlement. Thi3 plaintiff completely declined. Defendant, concluded Mr. Richmond, now denied that there was any partnership or ■profit-sharing agreement, and would say that plaintiff was employed at £5 per week, with board and lodging. Evidence was given by plaintiff on the lines indicated. He was cross-examined by Mr. Goulding as to sums received from defendant. The case is proceeding.