SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9847, 14 September 1903, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

In the case Price v. DeLautour, James Price, plaintiff, stated he remembered entering into negotiations with defendant for the sale of Waihora D. The signature, on the letter produced was wit- [ liess'. The letter, read by Mr Rees, offered to defendant witness' property of 300 acres on Waihora D. for £1600, provided witness < was to receeive one-half of the proceeds of the timber rights, and to hare four acres one rood set aside for plaintiff. Witness stated the signature on the document was bis, but he did not know what. was. m. the letter, which was not written by him. la reply to Mr Rees, plaintiff stated the offer as m the letter was made by plaintiff, who made 110 other offer to defendant. Witness did not sign, the transfer on any other terms than those m the letter to his knowledge. Defendant agreed with plaintiff to purchase a* sawmilling plant and to enter into partnership with plaintiff at Karaka on half shares. They made arrangements with Pomare Horsfall to obtain the goodwill of a property of 1000 acres and the right to cut timber upon it. The signature on the document produced was plaintiff's. The agreement, which was dated August 12th, was on© made between Horsfall and Messrs Price and DeLautour, m which Horsfall agreed to dispose of his rights for £200 to plaintiff and defendant. In reply to Mr Rees, Mr DeLautour stated that it was admitted there was nothing m. writing other than, the offer made by Horsfall prior to the sale, but defendant did not admit that the transfer was m pursuance of tliat offer. When the transfer, for Waihora D. was being made defendant 'wished to vary the provision' about the four acres one rood m the offer, but nothing else. Plaintiff declined to do this. He made arrangements with defendant and HorsfalL to continue getting signatures from natives m connection with timber rights. These signatures were to be obtained on behalf of plaintiff and defendant. Horsfall agreed to obtain the signatures, and witness paid him £10 m defendant's presence. Before the transfer was completed plaintiff had paid defendant £84 m connection w.ith the transactions. This was not a loan to defendant, as alleged. '- Plaintiff and defendant requested Mr William Morris to dispose of his timber rights to them, but Mr Morria would not break his word of honor, to fttr Bell. It was arranged that whoever saw Mr Bell first was to mention it to him. Plaintiff saw Bell first, and he agreed to withdraw on certain terms, which plaintiff stated to Mr DeLautour. Plaintiff afterwards saw Mr Morris, who conseuted 'to the Is a hundred offered. Mr Lionel DeLautour was to . take charge of the arrangements to complete the transactions. Plaintiff and defendant then interviewed Mr On- m

regard to obtaining- timber rights, and Mr Orr agreed to the same terms, Is a hundred. It was understood that Mr Nolan, Mr Orr's solicitor, would complete arrangements. The dealings with Messrs Orr and Morris were made as between, them and plaintiff and defradnnt. Plaintiff did not interfere with the drawing up of the agreements, hut left that to defendant. Plaintiff had not authorised the transfer of timber i ights on Houamntuku No. 2 to the defendant alone, nor did he do so m. connection with the transfers from Morris and Orr. From what fell from Pomare Horsfall he first had reason to think that he 1 ;>d been left out of the transfer from Hnrsfall. This was after the signatures were obtained. Defendant himself informed plaintiff that he had been left out of the transfers from Morris and Orr. Plaintiff asked DeLautour the reason, but ue oid not give a proper answer, and wit'iuss went to his solicitor. Plaintiff and bis solicitor waited on defendant, who sinied plaintiff liad been left out of the tra< «- fers as they were not partners. Plaintiff instructed his solicitor to take action m connection with the transfer from Ponmre Horsfall, and his rights were subsequently acknowledged m the statement of defence. Plaintiff bad supplied moneys to defendant m connection with the partnership transactions. Witness had paid Pirihi Tutukohi £6 10s for obtaining signatures, E. L. DeLautour £20 on. July 22nd for mill purposes. Plaintiff had been m negotiation with Mr King for the purpose, of this partnership, and defendant went to Dannevirke to look about for a sawmilling plant there. (Left sitting.)