SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20642, 14 February 1929, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

IX DIVORCE. Wednesday, February 13. (Before his Honor Mr Justice MacGregor). CHOO QUEE v. CHOO QUEE. Motion to make decree nisi absolute. Mr W. G. Hay appeared for the petiturner, Hugh Clibo Qnec. There was no appearance of the respondent, Emily Choo Qncc. The motion was granted. TAYLOR v. TAYLOR. Action for enforcement' of a partnership agreement and a declaration as to partnership and accounts. M l ' ?• Sinclair appeared for the plaintiffs, Henry Taylor, of Hawea Flat, sheep farmer, and Alexander Taylor, of Hawca Flat, sheep farmer; Mr W. G. Hay for the defendant, Isaac Taylor. of Hawea Flat, sheep fanner. The statement of claim set out that in 1909 the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed to enter into partnership as sheep farmers and to purchase or lease land and stock. All profits were to be shared equally among the three partners. In February, 1909, Alexander Taylor and Isaac Taylor acquired, on behalf of the partnership, a leasehold property, being runs 05 aud-430<i, county of Vincent* tomprising 49,200 acres, and from time to time had dealt in stock. . In March, 1910, Henry Taylor, on behalf of the partnership, acquired a leasehold property, being runs 9oa and 00a, county of Vincent, containing 40,600 acres. From the date of the purchase Henry Taylor worked the runs 95a and 99a on behalf of the partnership until September 30, 1011, when these two runs were sold, and the proceeds of the sale (£ll4 ss) were paid into the joint account of the partnersh*P- From and after the sale Henry Taylor devoted the _ whole of his time and labour in working as a partner on runs 95 and 430 a, the profits and revenue from the working of which had been throughout paid into the partnership account w|th the National Mortgage and Agency Company. The defendant bad repudiated the partnership agreement, and had refused to account to the plaintiff, Henry Taylor, and had denied his interest in the_ runs, stock, and other assets. The plaintiffs claimed that the agreement be enforced, that a declaration be given by the court that > a partnership existed between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and that accounts be taken in connection with the runs and other assets from the date the partnership commenced. In his statement the defendant denied that he and the plaintiffs at any time agreed to enter into partnership. In 1910 the plaintiff, Alexander, and he agreed to become partners in equal shares in .the business of sheep farmers on runs 95 ,and 430 a, and that partnership still existed. In 1910 Henry Taylor entered into their employ as an assistant on the terms that he was to voceive his keep and clothing and reasonable remuneration for his services. Defendant admitted that in February, 1910, the plaintiff, Alexander, and he acquired the said runs, but he denied that such was done on behalf of any partnership in which Henrj Taylor was a member. He admitted that in March, 1910, Henry Taylor acquired in his own name a leasehold property, runs 95a and 99a, but be denied that lie acquired the runs on behalf of any partnership, He further denied that Henry Taylor at any time worked runs 95a or 99a or that Henry Taylor devoted his time and labour in working upon 'either of the runs. He also denied that at any time there was an acopimt with the National Mortgage and Agency Company for any partnership in which Henry Taylor was a member. The parties arc brothers who, it was stated by counsel, were at one time resident on the Peninsula, where their mother held two farms. They had a hard struggle on the runs for the first few years, but the holdings now showed a substantial profit. The defendant alleged that Henry Taylor was not a partner, but he admitted partnership with Alexander Taylor. The last-named submitted that Henry was a partner. Evidence was given by Henry Taylor. The case had proceeded for an hour, when his Honor suggested that the parties should try_ to settle the case without, further litigation. After discussion between counsel the suggestion was not agreed to. . The witness continued his evidence. Sirs Jessie Taylor (mother of the parties) also gave evidence. She said the runs were taken up by the three sons— Isaac, Henry, and Alexander. The money was provided by witness and given to Isaac on behalf of the three sons. She was not told at any time that. Henry was not a partner. At the conclusion of Mrs Taylor’s evidence the question of a settlement was again raised, and the court adjourned till 2.15 p.ra, to enable the parties to confer. On resuming, Mr Sinclair intimated that a settlement satisfactory to all parties had been come to.