SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13744, 27 May 1910, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. The civil sittings of the .Supreme C< urt were continued yesterday betm-u Mr Justice Sim. LAUGESOX v. SPEXSLEY. The hearing oi the ease of l.auge.-on v. Snensley, in which ihe sum ol LSQI> was claimed ior alleged breach ol ccntract and for work done apart from the contract, was continued. Mr Hunt with him Mr Uresson, .appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr \Vi ight for ihe defendant. Mr Wright applied for a nonsuit j on the ground, hrst. that the* relation ! cf the parties was a partnership, and not an agreement tor service. It it was a partnership, he said, that or uld be determined only by the provisions 01 the Partnership Act, or the v n'tings evidencing partnership. The case was an action for damages, and was no"' maintainable by one partner against another. The plaintiff had mistaken his remedy, and the case must fail. His Honour said that he would nononsuit the plaintiff at that stage, and he suggested that the evidence should be heard first, and the question of relief discussed afterwards. Assuming that it was a partnership the plaintiff was entitled to some relief if his partner had wrons-fullv excluded him. After some further argument Mr Hunt said he would withdraw the claim for £100 in respect of work done outside the contract. R. F. iSnensley, the defendant, gave evidence tliat he had been satisfied with Laugeson's work for a couple ot months, but had then complained that general improvemeni-s. such as scrub clearing, were not being carried out. and that the plaintiff was frequently owav from the farm. 'Hie plaintiff had l-eeii increasingly neglectful, and, as apparently, he did not care whether he went on with the farm or not, he (witness, concluded the agreement. He had not done so because he thought lie was paving Laugeson too much. He had ablate as September agreed to take Laugeson back if he was prepared to go on with the contract. ' William James Phillips, Thomas Boyd and Robert Baincy gave evidence, and the case for the defence closed. Mr Wright submitted that the plain-til_-should have churned for partnership accounts. Ho had mistaken his remedy and should be nonsuited. Mr Hunt submitted that the contract was not one of partnership, but of service. His Honour reserved his decision.

ALLEN" v. ALLEN AND OTHERS. In this case. James Allen, of Nelson, claimed a dissolution of the partnership existing between liiemliers of his family for the carrying on of the moneylending business established by the lute Mj Isaac Allen. Mr Hunter appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Aloers for the widow and life tenant, Mi's Isaac Allen, Mr Vincent for the daughter, Mrs Eastgate, and Mr Hunt for the two sons, Isaac Allen and Arthur Allen. Mr Hunter, in opening, said ho understood Mrs Eastgato agreed to the decree asked for. Mr Vincent said his client would agree to the decree of the Court. Mr Hunt said that a family agreement )iad been entered into to carry on the business of the late Mr Isaac Allen under the charge of Arthur and Isaac Allen, two of the sons. Various kisses had certainly been made, hut the mother and two of the sons were extremely desirous that the business should be carried on. They were willing that every opportunity for investigation should, be given to James Allen, the plaintiff. Mr.Hunter said the-facts were that the late Isaac Allen -had for many years curried on business in Christchurch as a moneylender. He accumulated a certain amount cf -property, and dial in 1002. The beneficiaries under Ihe will agreed to carry on the business and put in as the capital all the assets of tlie estate. The plaintiff had been absent from Christchurch for a number of years. The management of vthe business was given to Arthur and Isaac Allen, and the partnership was to continue until the death of Mrs Allen. The business was carried on by the two sons from 1905 to 1907, there were serious losses, and in 1907 a supplementary deed was entered into by which Arthur Allen agreed to retire from the control of the business, which should continue under the management of Isaac Allen. In March last, however, Isaac Allen had left -New Zealand to- join an operatic company iii Sydney, and Arthur Allen had returned to the management of the business. The plaintiff objected to that arrangement, and desired a dissolution of the partnership. It was alleged that certain speculations had been entered into outside of the scope of the business, and substantial losses had resulted. The application was that there should be a dissolution and a receiver appointed. Mr Alyers said that Mrs Allen did not desire a dissolution. Her income depended not upon the rents and interest on the capital, but upon the profits of the business, and if the business were wound up her income would suffer seriously. The trouble had been all hut settled between the parties. Tho plaintiff was willing to retire from the business, but the other parties could not agree upon a term in the arrangement, and it fell through. Mr Hunt said that lately the business had improved, and an opportunity should be given to Arthur Allen to run the business for some time to see how he got on. His Honour said that as Arthur Allen had agreed to withdraw, ho oould not return without the consent of all the parties.

Mr Hunter said there was nothing to prevent Arthur Allen buying the business if he wanted to. Mr Hunt said that the losses had been charged up against the brother's interest in the estate. His Honour suggested that the parties should come to an arrangement, but Mr Alpors said that neither Arthur Allen nor Mrs Allen would agree to the proposed appointment of Mr Ea.stgatc a.s manager, as insisted by another party. Mi Hunter culled M. Harnett (Public Trustee), D. Fnlvey (Private Ei*f|iiiiy Agent), and Arthur Allen, regarding the business and the control thereof. Thomas H. Harker. called by Mr Hunt, said he considered that Arthur Allen was a proper person to carry on t!;<* business. His Honour, in giving judgment, said he hnd no doubt the effect of the dicument executed by the parties in 1*505 was to create a partnership between them. The business iv«.s to be carried on by Arthur Allen and Isaac Allen, an sole manager";, but that was modified by the 1907 agreement by which Arthur Allen wa.s to retire from the business altogether, and the business placed under the sole management of IsaacAllen. The latter, had, however, abandoned the management, and the position was that the management had been assumed by the very man whom all Fne parties desired to have excluded, and the parties could mt agree over the appointment of any other person to act as manager. It was clearly a case in which it WB.s just and equitable tliat the business should he wound up. A decree must Ik* made for dissolution of tbe partnership, and that a receiver should o°. appointed at once. The only <-ue.tion was whether the receiver should be appointed manager, for if a manager were not appointed the business would have to stop. Mr Alpers suggested that Artliur Allen should be appointed as manager until the next sittings pf tl__ Court,