SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10417, 20 July 1895, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

■'■:'".- IN CHAMBERS.. . Friday, July 19. 7 ; (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) • ' COX V. THOMAS. ■S?'-S>^7- 4s3d, on bills, and Mr'v^U^ appsared on bohaU of the plaintiff, In thi™? • TZ U behalf of th« defendant. JS-im aad Jones, should bring in additional oanital Me to tW* TV"}.^^'- «S M*b&Wthe extendS* ov P rrfam lftl's lvilS the bills extenaiag over a considerable nerinrl fnr H™> aul* I^w^f* ln3tCad th? bills °f tl« defend! Jon*. The pa jntiff, however, insists further that it was.o condition that the defendant should enter iota.partnership oil the terms contaihed in |par ,ticular deed of 'partnership. One ofthese te?™ was that the partnership should continued sevTn years and. another'that-.neither partner should withdraw his capital from the-partnershiD Th 2 Mr*^-%* he defendant ho P cd Pto pay these^bdls-outfof the profits of the partnersnte and the plaintiff had consented, to rend* them" so as to enable him to do so. The deflndan? however, gave the^plaintiff no awfeummTof or charge upon his share in the capital or profits of the partnership, but the rights of the olainriff rested upon the bills only. b Whether it wa ß or was not part of the arrangement that th" defend' ant should .enter into the particular deed/as the plaintiff alleges,-the defendant did in fact enter into it. : In entering into it and in join in -the partnership there can'be no doubt the defendant acted jn good faith. If, th-refore, itwas a condition that before the plaintiff accepted the liability of the defendant for that of the late firm .of Kirland Co. the defendant shouldehter -into' pirtnership on^the, terms, of the -particular deedi mentloned by the plaintiff, the defendant has per formed that condition. After the above arrantment.had been entered into the business of &"e new hrm continued to be carried on, and all tW bills given by the defendant to the plaintiff which have already matured have been dulym"tOwinT however, to the action of the defendant in with! drawing some of his capital from the firm a difference arose between himself and his co-partuprs-and a deed of dissolution bas been executed. Oie of the terms of tbu deed wasthat the defendant should receive from his co-partners the, amount of the balance of his capital in the firm and this sum accordingly has been paid to U n?n Tfae .plaintiff now 3ue s the. defendant? üb? wPh- V?i? bl t Ua! whlch. hav£°°«:matured, and which therefore; of course.he could not now put insmt but for an amount-Jequal to the: present f ttbl bl\ after a»owin» discount for the periods to elapse before they, respectively"niatufe uSt C!M?wL an "Wnlouii'oM;- but lani satisfied that it \s wholly groundless.; There never -was intiff Pr Thntl/ t™/ 10* tbe toThe Kate's oTtThl^ 8 !*•« earlier liability nn rt X-?i llls% a i,nd l? su^sUtuWon of his «m.hin y + hbl ls" uT- hera "* no evidence of any courtTaft ct> vPe, be!DS <*tered into; but the court js asked to imply a coutract on the part of the defendant Wl «h the plaintiff that if atany time during the continuance of the defendant's voh Sf Sh, lp h Ki, rk and Jones the def^dant voluntarily retires from that partnership and ft ß thnfeif b,If-<S lltßl the defendant wi Ppay"o the plaintiff the then present value of the current bills less discount to the time of maturity No doubt .there are cases where, in order to gve nSSt^mnra^ 11' "-i^^ry that at? m that one ™P v h" Sl -lf- l here is a stipulation JZZh / ci? " who l 3 m business will pay to ?™ r //wj of- the, bl«i"ess, tbe condition is implied that during the term the person carry in* on the busuness will not wilfully p ; , t n n end to >t (M In tyre v. Bslcher, 14, CD FS Wl Km nlaTeTthat 1'tWll" ™^° **" c~ ErnfiV. Z**l K6 -bIUS WoUld be Paid °«t Of the Srtfo fLTi yet whetherthere were any pronts or not the defendant would be Hahl* Sffi' 116 * h'^- TlleCases of "l«^»" Sm Tt tt ,°. A PPllances Company (38 0 O 20pln'| B S itt? lya>lld C?- v. Wood and Co. (1891 hnobr't 4?!{ l8how how.reluctant the courts are to import into mercantile contracts stipulations for th?l\£\% Vl CSsly ted., in ths™- 1" ord"? show tLt ?h t0 recover il Uts "P°n Ilim ant ht wh* f r9rt VaS afi°nt«cfc with the defendant by which the amount represented by the •hm If "°W, Paya^le- notwithstanding that the feU^d tom^ lVfw T^l c« Mrent ™« he 1^ taued! to do. 'Had the defendant given to the plaintuT any assUnment over or charge upon hi« K^ f ff i h LM L I?, thß Personal liability'of a if«? t S at ? a he. bm«- The plaintiff was not h,?n y-tl° & edtjed w T l™h the defendant entered mtp.with Kirk and .Tones, and cannot invoke its E s, lon, s ™ >ts favour. Judgment for the t nn A B \ Cs sts as;. p?r scale- £la 1* flowed as foi one extra day; disbursements and witnesses' expenses to be fixed by the registrar " vv"nesses

, r £ *E JOHN JACKSON (DECBABED). s^)f^o^ £ r r d f n °^ intanance°f in^ nt' (Mr tit ■-• BBTiY MACII.DOWIE (DECEASED) Motion fin: commission to executors, with regisSSS^- Eeport confirmed= ■vr ' ? AI'KE» V. BLACKWOOD AWD OTHERS. ' Motion for Tudement by default (Mr J. A. Oook).— Accordinsly by consent. \ • , l-.-USER AND ANOTHER V. BO\YDEn' AXD OTHHRS Motion for directions (Mr D. Cooke)-Au order was made for the service to be pe.sonal, and for ifL?Hp yßerV-edt0 + cT eJ n ithin four mouth, atter the service or to ba bound.

XT <■• 1 JAMES KBTCniN (DISCEASED). - fliotion for remuneration to executor with Kgistnrt report .(Mr DHncanl. - Keport confirmed; remuneration accordingly. - Tvr i.- E DAN'IEr. BROWN (OKCE.VSED) Motion for probate (Mr Sim).—Accordingly.,