LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIX, Issue 6340, 14 March 1882, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

DrSTRICT COURT.—Mr,s,, AY , [Before J. E. Maclonald, Esq., Judj,e.)

The fortnightly sitting of the Court was held this morning, and the following business disposed of : — Larche v. Dargaville.—Claim, £75. Mr. Thomas Cotter for the plaintiff; Mr. E. K. Tyler for the defendant. This was a case of unusual character. The plaintiff is a Frenchman, and a vine-dreaser and planter. The action was brought to recover for breach of agreement. The following outline of the facts are taken from the statement of the plaintiff's counsel. In September, ISSO, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant, by which the plaintiff was to occupy certain land at Tokatoka, in the Kaipara, with a view to establish a vineyard there. The defendant was to provide a sum of £1000, and the plaintiff waa to give the labour. The area of land to be thus occupied was 52S acres, which was to be reckoned at £1 an acre, and the balance, £472, was to be put in the bank to meet outgoing 3. The labour which the plaintiff was to give was estimated at £3 103 a week, but £1 103 was to be allowed to accumulate. Upon this basis there -was a partnership between the parties, the accumulation of the weekly drawback to be the capital, in addition to the labour which the plaintiff was to put into the concern. This contribution by the plaintiff during the ten years was estimated to be equivalent to £7SO. The learned counsel for the plaintiff said the agreement, as he understood it, was to the effect that the defendant agreed to pay £2 per week in cash. There was an agreement in writing drawn up, of whicli the plaintiff was to |receive a copy. The defendant had received notice to pro--1 duce the agreement. Mr. Tyler denied that there was received any proper notice to produce. His Honor :Is the agreement in Court? I think lam entitled to ask the question. Mr. Tyler : lam bound to speak the truth, and I decline to say whether it is or not. His Honor : But is that the whole truth ? (Laughter.) I have a shrewd suspicion that it is in Court. Mr. Tyler: Your Honor will see by the agreement that the action cannot be maintained against the defendant. The partnership business, and not Mr. Dargaville, was liable. The agreement was produced, and it was strictly a partnership agreement to which the partners were to be equal contributors, the plaintiff to contribute in labour and money, the defendant providing the money and land. The business was to be a "vine-growing" and wine-producing business. The partnership was to subsist for ten years, and the plaintiff was "to take out of the partnership business," a salary equal to £'i 10s, refunding to the partnership account £1 10s weekly, which was to represent his contribution in money. All produce, machinery, &c, over and above what was necessary for the plaintiff's use was to be sold for the benefit of the partnership. The £52S representing the 52S acres of land at £1 per acre, was to be debited to the partnership accouut, and under certain circumstances the partnership might be wound up in the usual way. The defendant was to give the whole of his time, as well as labour, to the partnership business. His Honor: What do you say to that, Mr. Cotter? I must say I have no doubt upon it myself, but I am quite open to conviction. Mr. Cotter : As I construe it, I think there is an undertaking on the part of the defendant to pay to the plaintiff £2 a. week, "in cash." His Honor : I shall adjourn the Court for half-an-hour, in order to allow counsel to make up their minds as to the effect of this agreement. The Court adjourned for half an hour, and upon resuming, Mr. Cotter was heard in his contention-that the defendant was liable for £2 a week in cash. The main argument was that Mr. Dargaville was to advance £472 " from time to time as might be required." His Honor : That was still ro fie a part of the partnership fund. Now your claim of £2 a week was 'a claim to take that amount "out of the partnership fund,'"or to make the defendant pay £2 a week in cash irrespective of the partnership agreement. Here Mr. Dargaville has to do nothing but find the necessary capital. The plaintiff has to contribute everything necessary—time, labour —and he was entitled to receive certain moneys "out of the partnership business." That might mean out of profits when they should accrue, and not out of the copital stock. He would give his judgment in writing. Woodward v. Piiillipps and Son.— Claim, £100. Mr. Thome .for the plaintiff; Mr. T. Cooper for the defendant. The plaintiff in this case, who had been nonsuited in an action brought for wrongful dismissal, served notice of discontinuance, and the defendant's solicitor applied for the costs, £5 (is. Hoffmann v. Ferkis.— Claim, £43 4s. This was an action to recover the balance of money due on the purchase of a piano. The plaintiff proved the debt, and judgment was given for the plaintiff, with £4 ISs costs. POLICE COURT.— Monday. [Before J. E. Macdonald, Esq., E.M.] Drcsk and Disorderly.—Charles Ferris was fined os and costs for having been drunk and disorderly. Damioin'g Property.—Kavan Mason was charged with having been drunk, and with wilfully and maliciously damaging a door, valued at £1, the property of Patrick Carr, at Newton. Adjourned till next day. Vauu.vxcy.—Eliza Rice was charged with having been drunk, and with a breach of the Vagrant Act, 1866, by being a habitual drunkard, having been thrice previously convicted of drunkenness during the preceding twelve months, and having been previously convicted as an idle and disorderly person. Sentenced to six mouths' imprisonment with hard labour.

Indecent Exposure.—John Jones was charged with a breach of the Auckland Municipal Police Act, 1566, by wilfully and obscenely exposing his person in a public place. Adjourned till next day. Assadlt.—Charles Webster, al!nn Driscoll, waa charged with assaulting William Allen, by striking him on the face with a glass bottle, ou the 9th inst. Prosecutor said he did not wish te press the charge, he and defendant being equally guilty. The case was postponed to Monday next, defendant in the meantime to pay the costs.

Bigamy. — Elizabeth Darrah was again brought up on this charge. His Worship said he believed there would be further evidence forthcoming in the case. He was satisfied, however, that there was sufficient evidence already to warrant him in committing. Adjourned till next day. Bkeacii of Licensing Act!— James Martin was charged witli a breach of the Licensing Act, ISSI, by permitting violent conduct on his premises, known as the Wade Hotel, on the Ist instant. Defendant pleaded guilty, but stated that it was on election day, after the declaration of the poll for licensing commissioners. He said lie had done his best to keep order. SergeantMajor Pardy said the hotel had been very badly conducted since Mr. Martin had charge of it. Constable Moar deposed to a fight taking place in the hotel between defendant and anotlinr man on the day in question. Witness separated the fighting men. Defendant did not ask for protection. After hearing the evidence of 3everal witnesses, His Worship fined defendant 20s and costs, and pointed out that the Act allowed a penalty of £20 to be imposed. This conviction would act prejudicially to defendant in his next application for a license for the hotel.