Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 2801, 28 January 1871, Page 3

itm w—^i — ii in • »m^^ i ii i i i i -^—^_ ■sngaged to take command of the vessel, and •8811 her on shares, viz : Costa to receive onethird of the gross freights earned, and the temaining two-third to belong to the defendant, who undertook to pay for wages, victuals, and all working expenses, and to deliver the vessel up, with all her effect?, in good order and condition, when required to do so. A few voyages were marie -and then plaintiff, being dissatisfied wich Wood's conduct, demanded back the vessel, and she was accordingly returned to him. "Defendant now contended that De Costa was «ntitled to bear a shnre of the losses sustained in various ways ; but plaintiff alleged that, by virtue of the agreement, he was entitled to a third of the gross freights, what■ever might be tho profits or losses lesulting from the various voyages, and made a claim accordingly, including in his demand a charge "for damage done to ship's property while the vessel was in defendant's custody. The main question raised in the action was whether a partnership existed between the pan 'ties or not. Mr Haggitt, in opening the • -ease, contended that defendant had no inteTest whatever in the vessel, but was merely the servant of plaintiff,' employed to work the machine by which profits were to be earned, having agreed to accept a certain chare of the freights as remuneration for his services. De Costa and Wood were then examined on behalf of plaintiff. Mr Stewart, for the defendant, concontended that the relation between the parties was clearly one of partnership, and a partnership of the most elementary kind, in -which De Costa nndertook to find the mate*iial, Wood, the labour, and to keep the vessel in repair. His> Worship, iti giving judgment, said he oould not conceive this to be a partnership in any way. In the case of - Dry v. Boswell, Lord Ellenborougb. observed that "this was only a mode of paying defen<lant wages for labour, and was different from participation in profits and loss, so that, under the -circumstances, no partnership could be considered to exist between him and the owner, of the lighter." The agreement, in the present instance, merely said iihat plaintiff was to receive one-third of the gross freights ; no provision was made for his participating in losses. The two-thirds must be regarded as remuneration to defendant for Tub labour and expenditure on the vessel. •Judgment for plaintiff for LB3 133 Id and ■costs. ; In the following cases judgments were given for plaintiffs by default:—Russell and Co; v. M'Kenzie, claim of LIOO on a promissory note (Mr Turton for plaintiff) ; Gallo"way v. Paterson arid others, claim of 1/27 10s on a bill of exchange (Mr Haggitt for plaintiff); Park and Curie v. Wallace, claim 'Of L 24 16s 3d on a dishonoured acceptance ; asune v. Tubman and Wallis, claim of L 3 10s for goods supplied.