SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 12410, 21 March 1911, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

(Before His Honor ,Mr Justice Chapman) The k&itlng of t}«e action,' Alfred Friers v. Thomas BejJ, trawl-owner, wus continued this afternoon. The claim was for a declaration of partnership and dissolution of -partnership, taking of accounts, arid the determination of the rights of plaintiff; or, alternatively, £130 fop balance of services rendered and m Men of notice, * . Joseph Cotterill,. gontjnuing his evidence, stated that about three weeks after he asked defendant if he had made any arrangement with plaintiff about the shares. Defendant replied he had not ; he »upposed fcbey wpuld have to go on as they were, going. To Mr Stock: He bad been In defendant's empltfy until Saturday morniiig. He was .discharged. ' Previous to being discharged he had attended with Mi Bell at .Mr Mann's office, and made a statement* He was then asked as to conversation? thajb he h.ad ha^f wltf) defendant. He did pot remember having told Mr ;Mflnn of, th§ conversation .with defendant on the bridge re plaintiff's position.— Mr Stook i Why did you not tell it m Mr Mann's office?— Mr Mann said it was not needed. Did you tell vMr Mann plaintiff had never laid claim to having any shares m the vessel? — No, 'l never did. If Mr Mann took it down he would not-invent it, would he?— No, he would not, - i ' Witness added (that jbe had not had r conversation WJtH plajjnjaff ; " they had been at variance quite a lonor t-jme. ■ Robert Leader, fish-hawkey, stated that m December lant defendant wanted half of the boat. He Baid plaintiff w«s on a working half shore, but he would not give him or anyone else half share of the boat. Captain Pranks, owner of the trawler Gosford, stated that plaintiff was fully, competent to take charge of a boat. He thought £3 10s a week and 2s 'per 100 bundles, or £4 per week and Is per 100 bundles was a fair wage. Lionel 0. CJaje, shipping agent, deposed that he ha^, under Mr Cranby.. of N.apjfir, ihe Swnft for .sa-Je. Mr Cranby informed Jjim t^ajt piaiijtiff was h. likely purc'Hasei', tfie pFice being £550. Subsequently plaintiff called with defendant, and wa* uupplied with all P«r ticulars. To Mr Stock: Mr Cranby wanted £500 net. To Mr Burnard ; The boat fraa offered to the Harbor Board at £650. Arthur J. Rusher, restaurant keeper, deposed that defendant told him, two days after the Swan's . arrival, that he hsd given plaintiff a quarter share m the bpu£. Jamjes jPerxy ; employed on tfre (jfQßfpfdf gavfl evidence as to the *«\iR% fH& of y/&qes ; 'l^om^ fft^^PF* contractor, was called by Mr Bui^ard to, state that he and plaintiff were negotiating for the purchase of the Swan prior to the purchase with defendant. Mr Stock objected to the evidence. His Honor said it did not matter very 1 fftueh. " The wliittess {tepossed i# the direction indicated. This closed the case for plaintiff. >Jr S|tock ; jn opening the case, for the dejfendanjt, denied Jthat his client had jnjtp any partnership with plainliif, I'fipj tP j-heir jeavjfjg for Ifapier no agfeemgn^ }}-a* e#£ered jn(,P, detend-* ant taking piainliff tp papier for the benefit of his knowledge, Mr t?ranby would be i called, and would state that he had refused to treat with plaintiff regarding the sale of the boat. Another witness avoul dbe called (OfConnell), who wouid sjate that plaintiff admitted that defendant^ .was purchasing; the owner land he (plainfcift) were only working on shapes. Ifc w*e pffip ' after thp N bpat_ bad hem wpppng spme time when plaintiff laid any ejajm t^'ithe b,oa|t, wl|jch defendant at once repudiated,. however, offered a quarter working share m the profits on the working of the boat, which was aIL he had ever intended giving plaintiff. Subsequently '■ .defendant ascertained plaintiff had an i«Wjg)£i l e I r,it ticket and he was given notice. Defendant proceeded to give his evidence, T