PARTNERSHIP QUESTION

Evening Star, Issue 20254, 15 August 1929, Page 1

PARTNERSHIP QUESTION

CASE IH SUPREME COURT

This morning His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy heard the case of the Public Trustee, as administrator of the estate of the late William Duthi© Laiug, dairyman (plaintiff) v. Arthur Andrew Laing, dairyman, Wakari (defendant). Mr W. G. Hay appeared for tne plaintiff, and Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for the defendant. Tho statement of claim set out that the deceased had carried ou business iu-co-partnership in equal shares with the defendant in the business of dairymen, and that the partnership dissolved on the death of W. D. Laing; that the affairs of the partnership had not been wound up, nor had its assets been distributed to those entitled to them; that among the assets were certain pieces of land held by the partners in Joint tenancy as part of the partnershio assets, that the plaintiff had requested the defendant to join in realising the 'property and winding up the affairs of the partnership, but defendant had refused to do so, and claimed that the land was not part of the partnership assets. Plaintiff therefore asked tho court for an. order declaring that the partnership was dissolved, that the lands wore part of the partnership assets, and for an order that the business and affairs of the partnership be wound up by the court. In his statement of defence the defendant denied that the partnership had not been wound up. It was admitted that certain pieces of land worp held by the deceased in joint'tenancy, hut it was claimed that other pieces- of. land were"not.'part, of the partnership assets.

Mr Hav, in opening his.case,'said the Public si ee wa-- "ding • . Dio, a.dof 'tint estate W'tlip late William Duthie Laing. who died in 1927. The defendant was a brother of deceased. The brothers carried on a milk supply business. The question to he decided was whether certain land belonged to tho partnership asseis._ It was admitted that this land was a joint asset, but it was denied it was a partnership asset. An awkwwnrd position had consequently arisen, and a solution was wanted. * The Public Trustee claimed that the facts pi tho case indicated that certain portions of land were partnership assets as well as other lands which were not in dispute. It the lauds over which there was a dispute were not partnership assets, then the beneficiaries of the estate of the late Will iam Duthie Lainur would find themselves deprived of £SOO to which they had understood they were entitled.

Mr Hay proceeded to relate at length the history of the partnership and of the purchase of the carious pieces of land. Tho Pnhlic_ Trustee, he said, claimed from the history of the matter that the properties in dispute were partnership assets. Evidence was called in support of the claim, ami the case was proceeding at the luncheon adjournment.