EMPLOYEE OR PARTNER?

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11647, 11 October 1923, Page 5

EMPLOYEE OR PARTNER?

DECISION OF THE COURT. LIABLE FOR DEBTS AS MEMBER OF FIRM.

Mr Justice MacGregor delivered his judgment yesterday with reference to the action of A. Hatrick and Co., Ltd., against Frederick A. Neilson, wherein a declaration was asked for to the effect that the defendant was liable to the .plaintiff company, as a partner in a business known as the “Firestone Tyre Depot,” for debts of that firm incurred from January, 1921, until July, 4tTi, 1922. The plaintiffs also claimed judgment against the defendant for the sum of £4OO 9s Id and certain costa. The question principally at issue was whether Neilson was a partner or employee of the firm. “At the request of counsel on both sides, I am now to deal only with the broad question of liability, and to leave the precise sum for which judgment is to be entered to he settled by the Registrar of this Court if the parties should bo unable to agree upon the figures,” said His Honour. For reasons given at considerable length, he arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff company was entitled to succeed in this action.

"I make a declaration as prayed, that the defendant, as a partner ill the ‘Firestone Tyre Depot,’ is liable to the plaintiff for all of the debts and liabilities of the said business to the plaintiff incurred from the month of January, 1921, up to and including July 4th, 1922. There will be judgment against the defendant for the amount of the said debts and liabilities, to be ascertained by the registrar in the event of the parties not being able to agree on the amount thereof,”” said His Honour, who said that the plaintiff was entitled to oosts as per scale on the amount for which judgment wae to he entered, with £5 5s for the second day of trial, £2 2s costs of summons for interrogatories, and £2 3s costs of affidavit of discovery. Disbursements and witnesses’ expenses were to he fixed by the registrar. Liberty was reserved to either party to apply to tho court. Mr D .S. • Smith appeared at the hearing for the plaintiff company, and Mr G. G. Watson for the defendant-.