RESOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LI, Issue 16671, 26 February 1925, Page 5

RESOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP.

'aM.KGED BREACH OF AGREEMENT. CLAIM FOR £67 19s Id. An alleged breach of a dissolution of partnership agreement occupied the attention of the Magistrate's Court this morning. The claim was one in which Thomas Moss and Sidney Moss claimed from John Mahoney the sum of £67 19s Id alleged to he due as the balance of accounts owing to the partnership. Mr. L. T. Barnard appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. R. B. Hill for tiie defendant. -Mr. Hill submitted that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction in the case, which was a partnership dispute alleging a deficiency of £67 19s Id. It w:s not a liquidated claim, and the d( - fendant admitted no deficiency. Before His Worship could decide the case he would have to be an accountant and go into books involving thousands of pounds. The partnership was not , wound up, and there were big discrepancies which they questioned. Since 1922 £ooo had been written off n 6 bad debts. One debt alone of £309 had been written off despite the fact that the man owing the money had given securities for the amount. It was impossible to tell whether there would be a deficiency until the whole partnership was wound up. The matter was one for the Supreme Court. The Magistrate: Your correct procedure would have been to file a notice for sending the case to the Supreme Court. Mr. Burnard : This is certainly most We have had the case .postponed from December solely for the v convenience of Mr. Hill, who was not i ready. Mr. Hill: I submit that I’m quite within qjy rights in objecting at this stage. Mr. Burnard said that since Mr. Hill wanted the matter brought to a head he should have notified him that he wanted the case taken in the Supreme Court. It appeared that Mr. Hill wanter to further delay the case. Mr. Hill submitted that His Worship could not decide the case, because the defence contended’ that the accounts were all wrong. Mr. Hill then produced balance-sheets of the firm. Mr. Burnard said that the point raised was easily answered, and the unreasonableness was apparent. The ,Magistrate had jurisdiction where the actual amount in dispute did not exceed £2OO. It did not matter whether the claim was liquidated or not. The Magistrate: If the balance-sheets are attacked by the defence where will you stand? Won’t that break my jurisdiction. Mr. Barnard contended that as the claim only involved £67 the Magistrate had jurisdiction. Under the main Act the Court had power to appoint a receiver. Although the matter sounded very difficult the real issues were simple ones of fact. Mr Hill: Of course, we don’t admit all this. Mr Burnard: It’s quite clear that Mr Hill’s line is to be obstruction. The Magistrate: This is counsel’s opening, Mr Hill. Continuing, Mr Burnard said that in September, 1922, the parties agreed' to dissolve partnership. The arrangement made was that plaintiffs should wind up the partnership, realising the assets and paying debts. The plaintiffs had prepared a statement showing the differences between the balance-sheets. What they were asking was that the moneys Which, hiid been claimed in 'excess of that due, should be refunded. The halance■/sheets therefore did not really affect the claim. The books had been available y to the defendant and his accountants, and no indication had been made as to any error in the balance-sheet. The part ties were unaffected by\ the money which had been written off, and the only matter that had to be gone into was the question of receipts and disbursements. Mr IIill: You contend there is a deficiency. Tlni Magistrate: Please don’t interrupt, Mr Hill. 1 have already told you that this is only counsel s opening. Continuing, Mr lluniard said that plaintiffs had agreed to put all moneys in trust until the chance of dispute was settled? hut defendant had not agreed to this. ’the Magistrate: Supposing that the had debts are being gradually collected, can you still claim £67 19s Id? Mr Burnard : Yes, Decnuse defendant is blocking collection of these had debts. The Magistrate: What will those bring? Mr Burnard: About £ZCO. The Magistrate: Then doesn’t that really block the case? I feel that I have no right to go any further in the matter. Mr Burnard submitted that it was competent for partners to come to the Magistrate’s Court-and claim reimbursement of moneys. The Magistrate: 1 might be able to say that a certain amount is owing b*»t 1 cannot give a definite judgment because I have no jurisdiction. Mr Barnard then agreed to withdrawal. Mr Hill then asked for the costs which had been paid by defendant on the adjournment. The Magistrate refused the application - for costs, and nonsuited the plaintiffs without costs.