SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 12411, 22 March 1911, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman)

PARTNERSHIP CLAIM,

At the Supreme Court yesterday after noon the case was continued of Alfred Friers, of Gisborne, fisherman, plaintiff (Mr Burnard), v. Thomas Bell, of Gisborne, fisherman and trawler-owner, defendant (Mr Si<ock, with Mr E. H. Mann), claim for a declaration of part nership and dissolution of partnership ; as on December 6th, taking of accounts,*? and the determination of the rights of plaintiff ; or, alternatively, £130 for balance of services rendered and m lieu of notice. Thomas Bell, defendant, deposed that! he hail seen' the trawler Swan adver- : tised for sale prior' to discussing the boat with plaintiff. When he first dis cussed the subject with plaintiff he remarked that he : had seen the Swan advertised m the paper. He asked plaintiff what he, thought of it. Plaintiff remarked it was just the thing for the place. (He told plaintiff he would give j him £1 10s and his fare to go to Napier and examine it. Plaintiff added lie would like a working share m it, but he had no money. He (defendant) consented. Nothing was caid as to what his share was to be, and no arrangement was made as* to partnership. ■• Nothing was said as to plaintiff having half'; the boat m the event of hfm (defendant) buying it. The price, .he knew, was £500. He went to Napier, and saw Mr Oranby. The latter refused to deal with plaintiff. They inspected the boat at the Spit, and eventually he bought it. Witness produced the agreement of sale. He paid the £150 deposit and gave the necessary promissory notes. His Honor : Had you- ever bought a ship before ?— No, I hardly knew one end from another. Defendant went on to state that the order was, first made Out to plaintiff on his (defendant's) behalf, and he had this cancelled and made out m his (defendant's) own name. He paid plaintiff's fare and gave him £2, besides paying "his train fare to Palmerston. Hegave plaintiff £5 on the train. Defendant entered the hospital at Napier, and gave plaintiff £45 to look' after. Defendant added that m consequence ol hearing something about plaintiff he became uneasy, and motored down to the Spit to obtain this money. Plaintiff said he wanted £5 of it, which he (de fendant) gave him. All plaintiff did was to go and procure a steam winclt and order a net. On the arrival of the trawler they had further interviews — far_ too many. One night going home plaintiff claimed half the boat. He (defendant) said : You don't want half the boat? Plaintiff said he did. He (defendant) replied you will never get it. When m Napier he told plaintiff that he was quite prepared to fix up an agreement with him. Defendant declared that Cotterill's evidence, m which he (defendant) was said to have admitted he had given plaintiff a half share m the boat, was incorrect. He remembered the conference with plaintiff, Cqtterill, his (defendant's) brother and himself. He was then quite willing to sell them all a quarter each if they would put the money m. Plaintiff did not agree ; he said there had been some misunderstanding. A few days after wards he agreed to take a \ quarter share, but subsequently refused. They never came to any agreement as to what his share should be. One day an December he met' plaintiff m the , street, and ■ asked why he was not out m the boat jon a fine day like that. Plaintiff said j he was not going out any more until • the agreement was drawn out. He (defendant) said he would soon get some I one else. Plaintiff declared that he j would nail his ticket to the mast, and 'if another captain Was ' sent aboard he would pitoh that man and defendant , overboard. That day .he ascertained that plaintiff was not qualified, and could not act as master of the ship. The first cheque he paid plaintiff was ■£3 for the week, and the next time he was being paid plaintiff paid £8 would do him. Plaintiff was paid £2 every week. j To his Honor ; There was never any agreement as to what plaintiff's wages ''were to he. ' j Defendant added that he had paid plaintiff £06 m wages, and £9 expenses m Napier. j His Honor questioned defendant regarding the arrangement with the engineer as to his wages and commission. I Defendant explained this was not yet arranged. | His Honor : I think,, the sooner you make an arrangement after this the better. I To Mr Burnard : He did not see Mr , Clare before plaintiff took him there. , He thought he saw the price advertised m the paper. He was a bit mixed. It might have been plaintiff who told him that the price was £500. There was still so much talk about it that he did not quite rememher. Defendant complained that he had fallen into bad hands. \ : " Defendant was subject to * Frequent questions, remarking that it was rather puzzling .toy him>. a man who had been m Gisborne for 28 years and had never had any law bases.' Counsel wis trying to annoy him. * Cross-.examlned as to whether a com petent man would go to Nnnier to ex amine a boat for £1 10s, " defendant affirmed that such was the case. He had agreed to give plaintiff a "working share," although he did riot understand what it meant. Continuing, ••' defendant Wd he was quite willing at ..Napier to .have the agreement' Brawn up, and would not contradict plaintiff's, statement that there was not tnrie to have it done, He lwid paid plaintiff £8, exclusive of £1 fare. He did not know that plaintiff had paid £4 4,$ ,6d expense^ |n connection with nic boat at Napier, , , His Honor said .that If these disburse hfe,rits ivepe claimed they should have been particularised m the statement of ojalm. :'... Mr Burnard said .that . plaintiff only desired to* show' that 'the money paid him for the' Napier trip was for out of pocket expenses. Mr Stock submitted that plaintiff should- have been crammed on this point. Defendant; admitted thafc R carpenter w «? employed at. Napier. The steamer came up from ' Napier under tow. He ' had paid .£l2 for Rowing, «nd £2 for an extra' man. The boat did not need provisioning. He did not know whether he had told the witness Brown that plaintiff was a partner of his. He would not contradict him. * ■ t * His Honor.: Did you ever say suoh a thin? to Browri?— l don't remember. Mr Burnard: know the witness Cotterill?-,Yes, to my sorrow, J Defendant declared that the evidence* of tliat witness . >vas not true. j At this qiage (S p.m.)the Court adjdUrned until this morning.