SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCV, Issue 10920, 31 March 1896, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Mondat, March 30. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston). PRINS T. OVENDEN. This was an action to recover a sum alleged to be due under a deed of partnership. Mr Beswick appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Fisher, with him Mr Stringer, for the defendant. In his statement of claim the plaintiff said that he and the defendant entered into partnership as medical practitioners and surgeons at Christchurch, by a deed dated Dec. 10, 1887, by which the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff =£looo as consideration. The defendant paid =6250 of the .£IOOO, and on or about Dec. 23, 1887, borrowed from plaintiff £IOO, thus leaving himself indebted to plaintiff in £BSO, The partnership was dissolved as .from Oct. 31, 1890. On or about Dec. 24, 1890, the plaintiff, at defendant’s request, paid to the Mercantile Finance and Agency Company, to whom the defendant was indebted, the sum of £IOOO. It was agreed that the plaintiff should receive all moneys coming to the defendant as his share in the partnership until those sums, with interest and commission, had been repaid. On March 14, 1895, £650 16s 6d was due by defendant to plaintiff, who prayed judgment for that sum, with interest at 8 per cent as from March 14, 1895. In the statement of defence the defendant denied that he agreed to pay £IOOO as consideration. By the partnership . deed he agreed to hand over to the plaintiff his promissory notes for £750, payable in three sums of £250 on April 4, August 4 and Dec. 4,1888. He had done so. The plaintiff’s causes of action had not occurred within six years of this action, and were barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff had collected book debts owing to the firm considerably in excess of his claim. All moneys owing by defendant to the company had been paid to the company or its assign. The defendant counter-claimed that accounts ■might be taken and the plaintiff ordered to pay to the defendant what might be found due, and be restrained from proceeding further in the action. Mr Fisher said that Dr Ovenden had instructed him to withdraw the defence under the Statute of Limitations. :

Mr Beswick said that the plaintiff had no objection to accounts being taken. After evidence and discussion between his Honor and learned counsel, the question of whether the collector who had collected the book debts had done so as agent for Dr Prins, or for the partnership was referred to the Judge, and his Honor said he would take time to consider his decision, after which accounts are to be taken before the registrar.