AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 12853, 29 April 1905, Page 7

AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT.

A SITTING of -the Supremo Court in chambers was held yesterday, before Mr. <J"asiico Edwards.

Orders Made: On the motion <of i\[,. Martin, an under was made for th o appointment of the official assignee as trustee an the estate of .Eneas Gallagher, deceased Under the Arbitration Act an order. 011 the motion of Mr. McUrcgnr. was made to remit a matter in dispute between Henry C. Tonk.<» and Josiah 1). 'Webster for the consideration of (lie umivVc. Hesketli v. Reid : .11 is Honor .felivered ."judgment 111 the case of Samuel Hesketh (administrator in the estate of John Reid deceased), against, James lie id. beiuV a question for (he Court to determine whatsum is para bio by Ihe defendant to the plaintiff m inspect, to the partnership ia he estate of defendant's brother (John Reid). The deed of partnership provided : hat on the death of either of the partners f.he surviving partner should have the option of purchasing all «he interests of (.he deceased, if those interests were fie." from encumbrance, for Hie sum of £10,000, less the amount of encumbrance. .At the'time of tho death of Joh.i Reid a mortgage, of £4000 was held over his property lv Mr. Thomas Rcid. and t'iio defendant claimed ! to deduct the whole of tins from the purchase money, while the plaintiff claimed That defendant must pay the full amount of purchase, £-10,001 " His Honor said that the encumbrance effected by the deceased partner affected his interests in the partnership assets only. The clause in the agreement was very ambiguous, but tlitre wero sufficient indications to show the iiieauiiig of (he contract between the two men. Ihe Court could not. make a new contract, but it could put a reasonable interpretation upon a clause in a contract that, though indifteiently Voided, clearlv indicated the terms npe> which the business aas to he conducted. It could not, bo beid that (he mortgage upon (bo \)\X>perty of Thomas IXr*• cl was an encumbrance within the mining 0 f the agreement, and, holding ft view of the wording of the 1 «c e d ; bis decision w.-.-s that the sum that- , defendant should pay the, plaintiff' for tire interests in the partnership of the late dohn Reid was £10,000. Mr. Hesketh appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Coleman for lie defendant.

. McAndrew and othere v. Tudehope and Another: This wai. a proceeding to determine thc> prim it j of liens tinder the Workmen's Lien Act, .? 1892. Ah iigreeiaenl; had been corns to between defendants and the several claimants as to t.he amounts which should he payable by defendants under the conditions of"the contract. Defendants had brought, a. sum into Court, but the amount was insufficient So discharge all the claims against it; the question to be. settled was, therefore, whether the first set of claims were entitled to he paid in priority to the others. His Honor held that they were not entitled to any priority, and that between members of'each class of claimant there whs no priority. This was clearly provided for in the provision that any number of persons, each of wljom is entitled to a lien, migh* join together in one proceeding to enforce the lien. In the present case all the claimants were entitled to participate in the distribution of the moneys paid into Court, and there would be an order accordingly. Mr. Stewart appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Martin for the defendants.