PARTNERSHIP DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19743, 16 September 1927, Page 14

PARTNERSHIP DISPUTE.

WORKING OF COAL SEAMS.

AN INCOMPLETE AGREEMENT. COURT ENTERS NON-SUIT. A partnership dispute between Kamo Collieries, Limited (Mr. Trimmer and Mr. Turner), and Kamo Potteries, Limited (Mr. Richmond), was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Stringer. The dispute centred round the question whether there was a concluded partnership agreement between the parties, and the action was brought for the main purpose of establishing the partnership. Kamo Potteries. Limited, owns the freehold of about 12 acres of land in the Whangarei district and has mining rights over seams of coal lying under a further area of 62 acres. An arrangement was made between the company and the miners who afterwards formed Kamo Collieries, Limited, under which the miners were to work coal on the freehold property at fixed rates. This coal was to be such as would be taken in the course of driving through the freehold to reach the leasehold property at a convenient point. A further scheme was suggested under which the deposits on tha leasehold property and some ot the coal on the freehold were to be worked by plaintiif company under a partnership agreement. No formal agreement was entered into, but a draft was initialled by the parties. The plaintiff company alleged this constituted an enforceable agreement, and that work was actually commenced on the properties in pursuance of the agreement. The defendant company's contention was that the initialled draft represented only certain points which had been agreed upon, but left other points undecided, so that there was no concluded agreement. The principal point left undecided was the amount of coal to be reserved on the defendant company's property for its own private use. It was claimed the work on the properties was done merely under a tentative arrangement in expectation that a final agreement could be arrived at, but that after two months it was found impossible to settle the question in dis pute. The defendant company then stopped any further work and cancelled the negotiations Plaintiff now asked for a declaration that a partnership did exist and for an injunction restraining the defendant company from preventing the further working of the coal deposits. Evidence was given by directors of the Kamo Collieries, Limited, in support of the contention that a partnership agreement existed.

Mr. Richmond moved for a non-suit, saying the matter had been purely in the air. It had not even been proved the plaintiffs had power to make the agreement.

His Honor, in non-suiting the plaintiff company, said all the circumstances pointed to the fact that this was merely a preliminary agreement requiring to be elaborated and completed. It had not been shown that the men who signed for the plaintiff company had authority to do so, or that the company by its constitution was authorised to enter upon such a contract. That alone was sufficient to dispose of the case. In his opinion this was not a completed contract at all, and was never intended to be such.