A PARTNERSHIP CLAIM.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 12789, 14 June 1912, Page 3

A PARTNERSHIP CLAIM.

Giving evidence m the case of F. Hall (Mr F. W. Noian) v. J. S. Allan (Mr Burnard) at the .Magistrate's Court ( yesteiday afternoon, deieiidant said lie entered plaintiff's employ m December, 1906, ana remained there until February last. Mr .Griffiths called. on witness m 1907, and told him that he M'ished to cell the rights loi\ Poverty Bay either for £25 eacn, and loyalty to be arraugeu at so much per foot, or a sum of jooo with no royalty, lie (defendant) suggested to Gri filths that it wouid bt: better to take £50 and no royalty. He discussed the matter with Mr liab the same day, and subsequently ai. agreement was arrived at, aud plaintiff* lirrii commenced to manufacture. ano continued to do so up to the time ht' (defendant) left them. About a year ; after Griffiths called on _ him again, ano asked if he. thought plaintiff would bujy half his remaining- interest m the patent. He mentioned ■' several districts the rights of M'hich he had sold. He introduced plaintiff to Griffiths/* and they talked it over. Plaintiff asked bin. M'hat he thought of it, and he (defendant) recommended tlie pioposal. Plaintiff said, "Well if you think it is all right, you take half of it.** He and plaintiff thereupon agreed to buy and a document was drawn up accordingly. ' Plaintiff continued to manufacture, m this district, but as a matter of ; fact the partnership had not been acted upon m respect of other districts. He had arranged M'ith a Wellington firm, but plaintiff would not sign tha ' agreement. It had -therefore' been an unprofitable venture. Letters received by the firm Mere opened at the office, .'and were passed on to him if they related to his department. The letters produced had come to him m that way V Plaintiff had told him to keep all the letters re the skylights. He had paid into -'Couirt m respect of this item £12 10s. He had , shown plaintiff the correspondence, and plaintiff said he Mould fight ■ Ballirger. He considered plaintiff's firm were liable for £25 cf the £50, and that the part nership, Hall and Allan, should pay the other, thus leaving his proportion £12 10s. He pointed out that plaintiff could he callbd upon, m respect of the local right's, tp pay £25. Respecting the second item, £ICO advanced to Griffiths, the first he knew of this was .'a message to speak to plaintiff at ' Napier by telephone. He did so, and witness gathered: from the conversation, that plaintiff had met Griffiths at Wellington, and the latter asked for a loan of, £100, offering his interest m the skylight as seJiritt*. Plaintiff a3ked wliat lie thought of it. He (defendant) sajd he could not;'advise him on tliat. Plaintiff tod .him to send a M-ire ( to Bell, Gully and Bell, Wellington, telling them ;when they got the security offered he would , -rive ..them, a cheque for £100. To make sure of the matter, he (defendant) sent plaintiff a 1 telegram (produced). He received , a i reply from plaintiff, "Post cheque for £100." He accordingly instructed tho : accountant to forward, the cheque, : which was done. Subsequently he drew 1 plaintiff's attention to the fact that the assignment «-as made out m the name of Hall and Allan. He told*- plaintiff -he 1 was not- lending any money to anyone. 1 Plaintiff told him he did not want to worry his head about that. He said., i "you did not pay any money, did you? That's all right. I know I won't see it again." He -clearly understood that he i bad no liability/ whatever j n the matter, I and the first lie heard of plaintiff's' con- 1 tention that he had M-as, an account that he received this year. Witness had ' been away on 'plaintiffs --business before * 1911, and jon one occasion lie went to -Dunedin and Wellington to buy machinery. He got a cheque for £20 for ex- '! penses, and plaintiff said, "My name if ' good m Wellington and, Dunedin or any-' « M'here else m New Zealand." On that occasion he drew on: plaintiff, through ' Duthio and CO. He did exactly the ] same thing, on this occasion. Witness ' had paid into Court £5 out of the £10. He went awajf m June last on ( general business of- the firm's, and prin-. < cipally m connection M'ith the Te Pma sprin.gs contract. Plaintiff had spoken ' about the skylight business on several ! occasions, ano suggested that defendant ' should try to do something .'.about it ] while' he Mas away. When m .Welling- ' ton, after to the firm's: business, ho looked,' up several 'people, with ' the 6bject: of getting some reliable agent ! to take the matter up an<l Avork it for { him. He succeeded m getting a •firm to do so, on a royalty basis, for certain districts. ! On his May back he met plaintifi| m Napier,- and he told him whaJb\ had been done, and plaintiff ap ' Jjeared to . be quite satisfied. .Witnes^v eft an agreement with plaintiff to sign but plaintiffs-clerk told him Mr Hal) , would not svjn until, he got a -.proper report from witness. Since then witness ' had not had an opportunity to discuss the matter with plaintiff. Witness entered plaintiff's ferviee at a salary of £250 a year. Plaintiff said if his business increased witness would get a bonus. , His Worship : Well/he said his busi--1 -W did not increased—Witness : He : said co. your Worship. Witness aaid b was sure the business M-as making a profit. About November, 1910, M-itness had a long talk with plaintiff about .things genei ally, l and .suggested a differciit arrangement about salary. Plaintiff said, •■"! promised you a bohur^when yoanjoke a profit." .Witness said, "Yes, that is right." Plain-i'-(f Raid/ You got a bonus last year i ' this, year." Witness said, '.'.Well, I .'/ --.not seen any bonus yet." Plaintiff '■ i. '1. "That is" your . -ovfti fault; it is .the to f v you to "go and pick up.. 1 instrueLeu i^ied. to sign a cheque for you last y tar, and just the other day. I instructed him to sign another one,*' After plaintiff . went away last year witness asked Mr Fred. Hall, junr., if his father had mentioned anything to. him about a bonus, and he said he hadjnot. Witness then sent a wife to plaintiff, asking him if he could dfiw the £50. He got no reply. He asked Mr Hall ,' ' junr., if any wire had come m reference to tlie matter, and he said thefe had not. Witness heard no more about it until plaintiff returned., He saw plaintiff outside the Masonic hotel, and he told witnera he eoujd go and draw "that" £60. Witness went to Mr. Hall, junri, and he paid over the cheque. He riever received a demand v for repayment of the £50 until after he left plaintiff's service, although he • had received an account for £10 for goods received, which ho paid. ■ ' «, A To Mr Nolan : The account for £10 was from F. Hall and 80118, and M-as a goods account. , When Avitness went back to question the Allan and Jones account lie also questioned the other claim. He spoke to Mr Fred. Hall/'jurir., and the clerk about it. but could not see Mr Hall, although he tried to do so several times. Witness w,as, certain plaintiff was not making Oriffiths' skylights when he entered his service. There were other skylights stored oh. plaintiff's pre-, mises. but they were nothuig, like Oriffiths' ; they were Devonport. sky-' Jights. Witness never got a letter dbout the skylVrhts that he Jiad not spoken to plaintiff about. The costs m connection with the skylight were to be shared equally by ißall and Allan and Griffiths. Hall, and Sons were also liable. Mr Nolan said bis -friend was endeavoring to confuse the issues by bringing Hall and Sons into the dispute. His Worship remarked that he Mould go very fully into, the matter. "It would appear .from that agreement." added the Magistrate, "that Hall and Allan and Griffiths were equally liable." Mr .Burnard: That might be; but a : year previously Mr Hall stoned an aereeinent m which he made himself liable. Continuing, witness said he suggested his name should lie kept out of the Griffiths mort- • gage. He never told Bell, Gully and /'Co. to keep his name out, because he never thought he was a pavty to it When he said m- the wire tb Griffiths, >'«We will advance the £100," he meant plaintiff. Witness did not expect a halfinterest m the £100. Mr Nolan : Then why did you not object to your name being included m \ the'iast assignment? — That was Mr VHalfs doinc. If he M-anted my name >m. ,well and good; I did hot want it. Mr Nolan >. Oh, I see : when it came to the mortgage you objected to your name going m, but M'hen the final assignment was made you did not objpet |o he made an equal partner with Mr

Hall, though you had paid nothing and Mr Hall had paid £100?- 4 did not want an interest m it. Mr Nolan was asking further question:: on this point, when Mr Burnard suggested it was then 5.35 p.m., a. suitable time for an adjournment. The case was accordingly adjourned until 11.30 this morning. TODAY'S^ PROCEEDINGS. The cross-exami tuition of the defend- \ ant was resumed at the Magistrate's Court this morning. His worship asiced . plaintiff it' lie gave, any specific instructions, to his olei'tc as to the entry m the booKs regarding' tne i;£o advanced to detend.int.—Witness said he aid not. ; Defendant, m li-piv io Mr Nohin, jaid he. was away about thiee wosks. .ukl his expenses amounted to about £30. He was drawiilg wages the whole (time; xsui'ing .the time tie was away ne first went to Wellington, where he arranged about the Te Pitta job, the price ol wnich was to be ii2eJo. lie »vas engaged on i.ns business anoiit :i i »veek. He did not remember doing anything about the skylights while he was , waiting for an interview wttn the Bon. i I. Mackenzie, but he did other business for plaintiff. Witness was not instructed not to make orders for plain--, dff. He did all the ordering for the plumbing department. For the .last six .nonths that witness, was with plaint nt che ordering was dono by Mr Vv. Hall. I fnis. was atter witness- had given notice. \Vitness also made enquiries about tiie jlass of goods for sewerage connections, rlo was engaged on the firm's business tor about a fortnight. I'he skylight and ie Puia) businesses were not the only things he and plaintiff spoke about before witness went away. From Wei- J lington he went to New Plymouth to see Griffiths, and learned that the latter aad done practically nothing about the j skyliglits v m Wellington, \vitness eventually made some arrangements M'ith Jenkins and Mack, of Wellington, about che manufacture of the patent. H e then returned to Gisborne. He had no opportunity of trying to appoint other agents, for he received a wire that he was- urgently .required at home. Witness had asked Jenkins and Mack if they' had done anything, but >they said they luid'. not, as tlie license was not completed, 'plaintiff refusing to sign it. Phi iat iff asked for a report, and. M-it ness him a verbal .report. Witness had not marked a map snowing where the agents were situated, but Griffiths had supplied a map showing the districts m which the rights were- already disposed of. According to the document yfiall'.aud Allan covenanted to pay legal costs, but he .did not understand that ne mas to bo personally liable. Hardly and i Hardly requested plaintiff to join m the legal costs, as he was a substantial man. Mr Nolan : Can you explain your, ration m Removing the documents ad-, dressed to Mr nail M'hen you left his service? '■•. Witness: Mr Hall must have given mo that telegram, or I would not have got it. He asked tne to keep all the correspondence iv respect to the skylight.- ' -. „,'.' Hi j Worship,: Do you say the plaintiff gave you the telegram you* sent liim to Napier '!— Yes. ■ , " ' He told you to keep all the documents ir ...connection with the skylight? — Yes, I have kept them all the. time . Mr Nolan: Were not these documents always kept ih\tho safe?— -Not always. I took them home, as I ' M-as looking after them; Bid you, rhake any mention to Mr Hall of tlie fact tliat you removed, any of theso, documents.? :' Witness: No; Mr Hall did not know .whoi-a thay were. They might havebeen m the bank for all* he knew.- He was well aware that I was m possession of them. You were m. possession , of Mr Hall's documents affecting' the plumbing department?—No,. I was not ; they Mere on tha premises. Ye*,- like these ?— No ; these haye to do with Hall and Allan, and nothing to do M'ith the ordinary plumbing business. How does it happen that ydu took aM-ay the letters, documents, "and. telegrams which might be useful to you m a possible action, and leave behind m tho safe a document affecting the same transaction? ' 7/ Witness : I did not leave any document behind. If one was found m the safe I say it was put there by some other person. •.*''"'■ ! Witness : explained that a document had been left m the office for plaintiff to sign. . . . I supposo you aro satisfied that your action m removing the documents is honorable? — Yes, I am. His Worship C His 'action would be .hono.-ablo if M'hat he says is true, that Mr Hall tcld him to 'look after.' the documents. -„ , ,' . . . ■- Mr Burnard: At anyrate, as a partner he had. an_ equal right to them. Witness said he did not notify plaintiff that he "had removed Jthe documents. He did not know that other .documents concerning., the skylight were m the. safe. . v ". , / Mr Nolan : Is it not a fact that you removed the documents because you "am' ticjpated an action?— No, I did not anlicirntoany action. .■...Witness said he considered he was a half partner, although he did not expect to pay anything. He Mould not expect Mr Hall to lend him ;£EO on a wire like tliat, and he had never borrowed money from plaintiff. He considered a reasonable percentage of j profit on tllo plumbing business would be 10 Der pept. of the capital em plo red. A fair percentage on the turn-over would be 5 per cent.. -Witness had seen some of plaintiff's balance-sheets, but did not remember seeing the one produced (last year's.) He did not remember plaintiff being angry > with him about any bal-ance-j-heet., He remembered going into a -.-balance-sheet M-ith plaintiff. . He was shown several balance-sheets, but did not consider the one produced a proper balance-sheet. He remembered Mr Jenkins asking Mr Hall the .reason for marking off about £1200, and no reason was found for marking it off. It made the profits look to • be about £1200 less than they 'should have been. 'The. bal-ance-sheet produced was not , a Correct one, as the figures mci'o not-correct, He would not expect an employer to offer a bonus to a manager who" returned a balance-sheet like the one produced. To Mr Burnard: Tlie first year he was m. the plaintiff's employ, tlje, latter told him he made a profit of £1000. ; He had charge for nine months during that year. The following year the balancesheet shoM-ed a profit of over £3000. Tliat was the best year. The lowest profit m a^iv balance-sheet shown to him M-as £1600. Mr Burnard: You say the plumbing department m'qs making a' fair profit?— Yes; if it. had .not I Mould have been out of it long ago. Hi* Worship remarked he would like Mr Hall, junr., recalled, as he Would like to ask him a question or two about defendant's conversation with' him m , regard to the bonus. \ '*■ ' " After- the' luncheon adjournment, Mr Burnard pointed out that he had already askod Mr Hall, junr., as to -.whether there M-as any conversation 'w"th defe'--dant about the bonus, and the newspaper report- supported that.— Mr Nolan contended that the report referred to a different matter., - In reply to his. Worship, Frederick Hall, junr., said he had no recollection of a conversation M-ith defendant about a bonus. Mr Burnard did not address the Court. Mr Nolan 'said, that Mr Burnard had referred to plaintiff's recollection being vague regarding tho business, but he pointed out that defendant had all the r correspondence on the subject.- Despite that, however, plaintiff had not shown any lack of recollection. Counsel con- , tended tliat defendant was bound by the assignment agreement. If Hall and Sons, as manufacturing licensees of the . patent, were to pay Hardly and Hardly legal costs, then all the other licensees should be made liable.. The telegram . tp Bell, Gully, and Co. showed that defendant identified himself with plaintiff . m the loan of £100 to Griffiths, R«- , garding the question of bonus, even ii the word "the" was ih the telegram, no t business man Mould have thought ii ; , meant anything else than a loan. It I was extremely unlikely that a dissatisfied employer would give a. bonus to his • employe.

His Worship intimated that ho Mould go carefully into the voluminous documents before giving judgment. MWHaMMMMMMMI