PARTNERSHIP CLAIM

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19334, 26 May 1937, Page 4

PARTNERSHIP CLAIM

PISH BUSINESS DEAL

REPUDIATION ALLEGED SUPREME COURT HEARING A civil claim arising out of an alleged breach of contract in respect of the purchase of a fish business occupied the attention of the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, in the Supreme Court today, Theodore Nicholas proceeding against Dominica Moleta for £SOO damages and for an injunction restraining Moleta from carrying on business as a restaurant proprietor in Gisborne.

Mr. L. T. Burnard, instructed by Mr. D. W. lies, represented the plaintiff, and Mr. G. J. Jeune represented- the defendant.

Counsel for the plaintiff outlined his case briefly, stating that the defendant had wished to enter into partnership with the plaintiff in a fish-retailing business in Gisborne, part of the object of the partnership being the purchase of premises from A. Zame, another fish merchant. The defendant, had agreed to pay £SOO into the partnership as part of its capital, and was to take over the management of Zame's shop on behalf of the partnership. Counsel outlined the negotiations for the setting-up of the partnership, and staled that when defendant took charge of the Zame business, the late owners of that business were much disturbed, and endeavoured to frighten Moleta, indicating that they would make it impossible to succeed in his business efforts. "Refused to Proceed"

Moleta, continued counsel, had consulted a solicitor, who had contended in a letter to plaintiff's solicitor that certain clauses in the agreement of partnership were unreasonably restrictive on Moleta, who therefore refused to proceed with his partnership undertaking. Despite this letter, however, the defendant had continued in charge of the purchased business, and some weeks later the plaintiff had instructed his solicitor to seek satisfaction in respect of the partnership agreement. Defendant on the same day had left Gisborne, having removed his personal belongings from the plaintiff's house without notice. The plaintiff had suffered heavy loss through the collapse of his arrangements for carrying on the partnership. Lately. Moleta had returned to Gisborne, and in partnership. with another man, had opened up a restaurant business. His Honour remarked that an injunction against defendant was probably an important part of the issue for* the plaintiff, counsel agreeing with His Honour on this point. Plaintiff's Evidence Theodore Nicholas, the plaintiff, stated that for several years he had been in business in Gisborne, having made a success of a formerly unsuccessful undertaking. There were two other businesses of the kind in Gisborne, at the time the defendant approached him, one being the Regent Cafe and the other conducted by the Zame brothers. Witness agreed to buy out the Zames in partnership with defendant, and it was agreed that the two should put £SOO each into the partnership. Witness secured an option over the Zames' shop at £460 for fittings and goodwill, and subsequently the partnership agreement was signed by both parties, defendant taking charge of the shop immediately. A few days later his solicitor received notice from defendant's solicitor, that Moleta would not proceed with the undertaking. Witness had no talk j,with Moleta about the letter, but he asked the defendant for his money, and Moleta said he was not satisfied with the business, and proposed that plaintiff and he should buy the Regent business, in partnei'ship. The effort to buy the Regent business, failed, and when •witness again asked for his money, Moleta put him off. As a result, witness instructed his solicitors to act, and Moleta disappeared two days later without notice to witness, who did not take any action at the time because he did not'think it worth while. He had been left with a lease on his hands, and approached the Regent shop proprietors with a partnership proposal, and in order to effect this he had had to_ give his brother a half-share in his business. His Honour remarked that presumably the partnership was to regulate the price of fish. . Mr. Burnard: It does not say that, Your Honour.

Counsel further explained that there were now four equal partners in the fish business controlling two shops. Wages for the defendant had never been mentioned from the start of the earlier partnership, stated the witness. He had had a good expectation of a profitable business developing at the Zanies' shop. It was quite clear that Moleta was not to enter into any similar business during the period of the partnership.

(Proceeding.)