SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9701, 13 April 1897, Page 3

SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS.

gabd'ksk asd' others t burkip and OTHERS. This was an action for dissolution of partnership and accounts in which Maitland Gardner, F, C. B. Bishop, W. C. Morgan, and W. A. Carew were plaintiffs and Win. Burnip, G. R. Athey and Henry Ivey defendants. The statement of claim alleged that in the month of Jane, 1896, the plaintiffs and defendants agreed to enter into copartnership for the purpose of brewing and bottling non-alcoholic drinks.. It was intended that- the partnership should continue for five years bat no date was fixed for commencement or determination and no deed was signed. With a view to the co-partner-ship the parties to the action expended money, acquired property, and incurred debts* In the month of December, 18%, disputes and differences arose, and it was agreed between the plaintiffs and defendant Burnip thaft Burnip should purchoee the

interest of plaintiffs and interest of Athey and Ivey, if any, upon the basis of a memo of sale, by which the plaut and furniture was to be taken at coat, unmanufactured stock in trade at cost, manufactured do. at valuation, book debts as per ledger, preliminary expenses, lease,'and alterations to building by equitable arrangement. After the receipt of ths memo, the defendant Burnip took possession of the partnership property ancMealt with the samo as his own. Pursuant to the memorandum the value of the partnership assets was arrived at and amounted to £410 Is 5-1. Having obtained possession of the partnership assets it was alleged that the defend&ub Bnrnip repudiated the arrangement) of the 28th December. The plaintiffs desired that that the defendant, Wiu. Uurnip, be held liable to his co-defendants and the plaintiffo for the sum of Is 5d as the price of the assets, or that he might be held liable to his co-partners for the value of the assets. The phu'ntiftk also prayed the Court to decree a dissolution of the partnership, and that the accounts of the partnership should be taken aud the busiuess wouud-up by the Co art.

The statement of'defence denied all the material allegations contaiueJ in the statement of claim, and also specifically denied that about 26th December, 1896, he agreed to purchase the interest of the plaintiffs aud the interest, if any, of Messrs Athey aud Ivey. The statement of defense farther alleged that he purchased the plant, furniture, and stock-in-trade of the partnership, and nothing else, for 10s in the £ on an amount to be fixed by two valuators, one to be appointed by the plaintiffs and one by himself, and that he paid £20 on account of the purchase, and that he has always been prepared to complete the purchase and to pay the amount due under the same, but no valuation of the plant, furniture, and stock-in-trade has ever been made. The defendants also alleged that they consented that the partnership should be wound-up in terms of the statement of claim.

Mr KippenbergeL , for plaintiffs, Mr "Russell for defendants.

Evidence was led for the plaintiffs, Messrs Gardner, Bishop and Munro being called. Mr Russell briefly addressed his Honour for the defence, and called evidence.

Messrs Burnip and Athey were examined. Mr Russell addressed the Court; Mr Kippenberger replied.

His Honour, after reviewing the evidence, gave judgment for the plaintiff that the purchase by Burnip was as set out*in the memorandum produced by the platutifl', which was in effect that the defendant was liable to take over stock, book debts, plant, &c, as stated in the memo. The question of costs was reserved,^"and the equitable questions stand over to be mentioned on Wednesday next.

The Court then rose.