Resident Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 2 July 1891, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

. • _-, » -„. (Before H. TV. Brabant Esq, R.M.) Wednesday, Ist July. E. Gsborne v. A. Beanchamp— . ffJ."Ba del ,- Mr Ray for plaintiff. No appearance, of defendant. Judgment for amount and costs 17s, solicitor's fee 21s.' Same v. Aote Popo— Clainr f4. Mr ,.. Bay foi' plaintiff. ' Defendant admitted the claim. Jupgment for amount, payable by £1 a month, and costs 14s. Same y. George Coyle- Claim £2 13s 4d. : Mr • Ray for plaintiff. No appearanceof defendant. Judgment for. amount and costs Bs.- ■• t .' . Same v..JE. Ssadbolt— Claim 24 9s Bd. . M<;Ray fpi* plaintiff. No, appearance of defendant. Judgmentfor amount witli costs Gs. To be paid at the rate of ]0s a month. C. & J.Symons v. Aote Popo — . •Claim £4 ss; Mr Bay for plaintiffs. Defendant admitted the claim. Judg-^ ment for amount and costs 14s. To bo paid at the rate of 10s a month. C. Honore v. .T. M. Connell — Claim £9 19s sd, for goods supplied. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount and costs 11s. E. Osborne v. George Cook — Claim £2 9s sd. Mr Piay for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount and costs 14s. The Court adjourned till 11 a.m. to permit aplaintili in, a case to appear, .On resuming, Mr Fitzherbert, solichov for the plaintiff in the case of James Gardiner v. McMillan, Rhodes & Co M and Joseph Birchley - Claim J>67 11s Id, stated his client had not arrived :uk! asked for a furthor adjounimcnt. Mr,l[:uikiii:-5 v^pveocniing tho defendants objected. Mr. Fit.'.herberi appealed for an adjournment till noon. This was permitted by the R. M. At ttooH auoqees was attained, tho

Mr Fitzherbert in opening said that the plaintiff was a butcher at Shannon. The ciaiin Was for irieat supplied to defendants who had the" Soho mill. The question really was as to whether McMillan Rhodes & Co were partners, and he thought they could show that if not a partnership it was a quasi partnership They would show that there was an agreement between defendants to share profits. He called James Gardiner.— He used to supply meat to the Soho mill at Motoa; when he first started supplying Bircnle^ and Daniels were partners ; Daniels went oittand McMillan and Rhodes took his place ; supplied meat before the meat charged for in tke bill of particulars J (May Ist) 1890), he had had a settle* ment by McMillan, Rhodes & Co's cheque : Birchley gave it to him ; it was for over the ninouht due ; the bill Was £15, the cheque was £19 ; lie Wanted hie to take &1& attd give him £7 change; did not do so but retained the whole cheque, but had paid an order of 15s; he had received payments on account amounting to £85; they were all paid by McMillan Rhodss cheques except £12 paid in notes by Gr^y ; The only dispute in account was that Birchley and Gray said lie had not given sufficient credit ; he believed^ change had taken place in the mill, but he could not say ; Birchley told me when Daniels went out that he and McMillan Rhodes were partners ; lie afterwards told me that the firm had let them the mill to turn the fibre out at £12 a ton, and that they were to get £4 a ton for use of mill, and anything over the amount of £16 was to be divided equally ; this was during the time the account was run-, ning ; Messrs Toomath, Gascoighe, Gray and Hay were present when .Birchley told me this ; ive were called together as creditors by Birchley. Joseph Birchley was at this stage put in the box to prove agency. > He said' he started the' Soho mill on his own account ; he then took Bi'adcock as partner; McMillan, Rhodes & Goi Tbought Mr Daniels put, who had the bulk of the money in it; they remained as partners up to March, 1890 ; they then let the mill to Gray and himself to turn out fibre at £12 ' a ton ; the balance was to be used ' to pay off the liabilities they had' ; paid up in full when they stopped ! the mill ; Gardiner fully understood 1 the position they had taken the mill ' on ; after the whole of the liabilities wtre paid off the arrangement was that he should have a division with , McMillan, Rhodes & Co. ; there was no arrangement as to who was to puffer any loss. „ Mr Hankins here said that there ; was no evidence from Birchley's ; statement that there was any partnership betwee.i lirchley and Mc- , Millan, Rhodes & Co. ' Mr Fitzherbert contended that he had conclusively proved a quad part- ■ nership. I 'I he case was concluded late last I night, and the remainder of the i*ei port'will appear in next issue. The R.M. gave judgment for defendants I as regards McMillan and Rhodes, • but against Birchley. The plaintiff thus virtually lost. The case was concluded late last i night, and the remainder of the report will appear next issue. The R.M. gave judgment for defendants as regards McMillan and Rhodes, ' but against Birchley. The plaintiff thus virtually lost.