THREE PARTNERS

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10851, 17 March 1921, Page 3

THREE PARTNERS

COE TOLD TO GO OLD MAN’S EXPERIENCE IN PRODUCE TRADE. QUERIES BY CHIEF JUSTICE. A civil notion arising out of an alleged partnership transaction was heard by Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice, at the Supreme Court yesterday, when Charles Quaid, of Wellington, produce dealer (Mr W. Perry), proceeded against John Charles Troy, ot Wellington, produce dealer (ill* P. J. O’Regan) andKobent Menzies, of AYollington, produce dealer (Mr J. Scott), for rescission of a partnership agreement, repayment of a sum of £205 Ss 3d, together with interest there.on at 6 per cent, per annum; and £IOO damages for wrongful expulsion from the partnership. Plain tiff alio asked that the partnership be dissolved, that accounts be taken; and far such further relief as the court might decide. The statement of claim set out that on or about September 14th, 1920, the plaintiff and the defendants entered in to an agreement of partnership in th<* business of wholesale and retail traders in fruit and produce, and of general carriers, under the style of “Thu Colonial Produce and Agenpy Com pany.” They were to put in capital as follows: —Menzies £2OO, or car and stock of that value; Quaid, £2OO, or stock of that value; and Troy, £2OO, oi car and stock of that value. The plaintiff paid into the partnership account at the Bank of New Zealand at Wel» lington the sum of £163, and also brought into the partnership stock potatoes to the value ,of £42 8s 3d, thereby providing the whole of the capital ''required to be him under the said agreement. alleged that both defendants falsely represented to him that they were able to provide the amount of capital required to be provided by them,( ftriH each, of them under the said agreement, but neither of them had provided such share of capital; that the plaintiff relied on such false representations and was induced by these to enter into the agreement; that- on or about October 11th, 1920, the defendants wrongfully expelled the Flaintiff from the partnership, and reused, and had still refused, to aJlpw him to take any part in the management of the partnership business . FOR THE DEFENCE. The defendant Troy admitted tl at the plaintiff paid to the credit of the partnership the sum of £163 and also a quantity .of potatoes, but he denied all the other allegations of the plaintiff. And for a further defence he stated that if a partnership was proved, the plaintiff falsely represented that he was able and intended to bring into the partnership certain produce business of a valuable nature in the South Island which statements were made recklessly, the plaintiff not caring whether they were true or false; that the moneys paid by the plaintiff were paid by him as a premium for his admission into partnershp; and that the plaintiff quarrelled with the defendant and withdraw from the partnership business, and was not entitled to the return of the moneys or any of the moneys. Menzies also* denied most of the allegations, and stated that he was an undischarged bankrupt, and that if it were proved that the allegations were true the contract of partnership was void as regards him as being in breach of section 138, sub-section 5, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1908. “TOO CLEVER FOR HIM.” The plaintiff, an old and white-haired man, said he had been in New Zealand for 44 years, and had never owed a penny to anyoody. He had sold a farm in the South Island, and put some money into the produce business, as he was too old to farm again. He never saw a penny of any profits in the business, nor did he know Menzies was an undischarged bankrupt. Troy was related to witness. The two men had been too clever for him. He had been a working partner, helping to handle the produce. They had called him “Dad/’ and it was “Dad” this and “Dad” that; “Dad,” get some apples; “Dad,” load the “spuds”; “Dad,” load the car. That # was all he knew about the firm. Witness had put up the sum of £2O to pay the faxes of Troy’s brother and the latter’s wife from the Old Country, but when he askej Troy for some guarantee of repayment (troy refused the request, and therefore deponent repossessed himself of the amount. On October lltb there was a quarrel, and the defendant; Troy told plaintiff to get out, ana Quaid had threatened him with personal violence. THREATENED VIOLENCE DENTED. Troy gave evidence on the lines of his defence, and he denied that he had threatened plaintiff with violence. He also denied that Menzies was a partner, but in answer to the Chief Justice admitted that Menzies and witness had signed cheque** drawn on the partnership account. His Honour: Menzies had no right to sign cheques. He will have to answer for that. Menzies, on oath, said Quaid was informed that witness could not enter into a partnership because he was an undischarged bankrupt. It was then agreed that Menzies should act as manager. His Honour: But you signed cheques ? Witness: It was understood that I should do so as manager. Sir Robert Stout: Understood t Understood by whom ? I have been at the Bar so long that I hold the opinion that, usually, when a witness says something “wae understood),” ho is not telling the truth. By whom was it understood ? Witness: By Quaid. ABOUT A M9TOR-CAR. In answer to Mr Perry, Menzies said that he had put a motor-car into the business. Mr Perry: And you were not a partner? Witness: The motor-car belonged to my wife. \ Mr Perry: You just stated that you put the car into the business. Witness: So I did; but it was my wife’s car. I also put in about £6O worth of stock. Mr Perry: As a matter of fact, did not the stock also belong to your wife?—The witness admitted that this was so. His Honour said the proper thing to do was to order the accounts to be taken as if the partnership had ended on October 11th—the date of the quarrel. He made an order accordingly, and reserved the questions of any relief to the plaintiff or damages for misrepresentation, if such were proved.