R.M. COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume 5, Issue 765, 4 April 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

To the Editor of the Star. Sir, — Being witness to the hearing of a case tried in the Hawera Courthouse on Weduesday last, I cannot refrain from making a few remarks (if you will permit me) re the decision of the justices in the case Blennerbasaett v. Henwood and Co. The claim was for balance of amount due on goods delivered to defendant and mate. The former who ; paid about half the whole amount refused to pay the remainder because his mate cleared out, and that he (defendant) could only be responsible for his share of it, there being no deed of partnership between them. Now, it appears from ; the evidence given in court though the bench ruled it otherwise,' that the ; defendant was both legally and morally ; responsible for the payment of the full amount. Legally — because the Act, which was read in court as proof, states i that it is not necessary that a deed of , partnership should always exist to 1 constitute actual partnership ; and this is only one out of several similar cases . that I have seen tried throughout the i country, where the available partner or mate has invariably been made responsii ble for the payment of goods" had by himself and partner or partners. . Yet the bench flipped thier fingers at the i Act, and would not heed it. Defendant was morally responsible, inasmuch as he made no effort to detain his mate with a view to getting accounts squared up, but otherwise, it would appear, rather aided him in getting away by lending him. his horse and then taking no steps to look him up or stop payment of a cheque which the levanter held, although being advised in time by claimants to do so. Yet in the face of all this the bench dismissed the case. Such, sir, is the manner in which our statutes are interpreted, and 1 such are the erroneous views held by the Hawera bench. — I am, &c, An Onlooker. |We have taken the liberty of modifying this letter considerably, by excising passages containing imputations quite unwarranted by the facts which came out. As set out in the notice at the head of this column, we do not, in publishing correspondent's letters, identify ourselves with the opinions expressed ; further we require a very strong prima facie evidence in justification before we permit correspondents to cast imputations on the personal integrity of those to whom they refer, —Ed. Star. |