MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19038, 7 December 1923, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, December 6, (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) , Judgment wag given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases:—Honor Pye v. Lawrence Sutherland, £4 10s for board and lodging (costs £1 6s 6d) ; C. A. Wishart v. H. F. Browne, £l4 for money paid on behalf of defendant (costs £2 14s); Reddoll’s (Ltd.) v. M. Murphy (Milton), £ll 18s 3d for goods supplied (costs £2 15s); Henry Neill y. Leslie Smith, £6 for a wristlet watch (costs £1 10s 6d) •, Rose Ellen Lowe v. Andrew Miller, £3 18is 6d for rent (costs £1 11s 6d); John M‘ln tyre v. Arthur F. ; Munich," £33. balance' for a motor bicycle (costs £4 3s 6d); John Fry v. George Dunn (Waimato, £5 10s for a saw (costs £1 3s 6d) • Niinmo and Blair (Ltd.) v. Ronald I. Reid (Blenheim), £BB 4s 9d for pea cleanings (costs £5 4e). Defended Case.—R. C. Miller v. A. Miller, claim £43 6s TOd for goods supplied.— Mr Moore apeared for plaintiff' and Mr Ward tor defendant.—Mr Moore said the question was as to the liability of defendant, to pay. Since September, 1921, plaintiff and his brother (the defendant) had been carrying on business at Port Chalmers .and Lyttelton. Defendant put • £SO into j:he .business, and received wages at the rate of £7 10s a week, which wag later reduced to £6 I'Os. Plantiff drew £4 10s a week, though he had paid in most of the money. ITo ’ drew other sums from time to time, but probably did nob draw-ft's'much ns Hie brother. An agreement to dissolve partnership was entered into between the brothers. Defendant had had the boat-building part of the business and plaintiff the shipwright portion. There were certain disagreements between the brothers, and from June, 1921, prior to dissolution, to December, 1922, defendant took from the business the goods set out in the statement of claim. They were . npt. entered, fift/itho firm’s .books. Jn March of- this -yepr:;P<sgotia.tions- 'werij. startedbetween them, in regard to defendant arid a man named Tonnage' buying the boat-, building portion, of the business, and an arrangement was arrived at. Robert Miller pointed out to his brother that there was £43 6s lOd for goods supplied, and A Miller asked that this stand over, as ho had no money, and could not pay, and would not be able to buy up the boatbuilding business. His prother agreed to let the matter stand over. If the facts were proved counsel submitted that plaintiff was entitled to. the £45 5s 10d.—Plaintiff, in his evidence, stated that he had agreed to let the '-account"stand over, but had never agreed to forgo the debt,.— Mr Ward said that R. C. Miller had admitted that he had taken material from the firm at the same time as A. Miller took material. The only difference was that A. Miller had entered it in the books, and R. C. Miller had not.—Mr Bartholomew; He says' the stuff may not have been entered.—Mr Ward said he would call evidence on the point. There had been a dissolution in 1921, aiul it was incomprehensible that the men should be in business and leave this debt owing. The evidence would be that it was understood that this debt and other debts between plaintiff and defendant were wiped out,—Evidence was given by defendant, at the conclusion of which judgment was given for plaintiff' for the amount claimed, with costs £6 3s.