Claim Made for Share In Flight Profits

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 418, 28 July 1928, Page 25

Claim Made for Share In Flight Profits

Pacific Flyers Sued by Former Partner

WRIT ON SOUTHERN CROSS Mr. Keith Anderson is proceeding at law against Squadron-Leader Kingsford Smith and Flight-Lieutenapt Ulm, to recover a share of tile profits accruing fropx the recent transpacific flight, and also a share in the Southern Cross, the monoplane in which the. flight was made. Mr. Justice Owen, sitting in Equity at his private home in Sydney recently, granted an injunction, application for which was made ex parte, restraining defendants from alienating or otherwise dealing with the airplane Southern Cross. The statement of claim which was lodged on behalf of Mr. Anderson by Mr. Arthur V. Hilliard, solicitor, bases the case for the plaintiff on the allegation that a partnership existed between tbe plaintiff and defendants for the purpose of making a trans-Paciffc flight. It declares that the partnership was entered into in July, 1927, and that ever since that time the parties concerned have carried on business as co-partners. For the purposes of the partnership the parties concerned acquired certain funds, went to America and acquired certain further funds, equipment and an airplane. In about March, 1928 (continues the statement) plaintiff, with the consent of the defendants and for the purpose of the partnership, returned to Australia, leaving the funds, equipment and airplane in the possession of defendents, who in June flew from America to Australia. It is further alleged in the statement that plaintiff from time to time made considerable advances of money for the purposes of the partnership business, none of which have been repaid, that plaintiff has received no share of profits made by the partnership, and that he has received no proper account of the dealings of the defendants with the funds and assets of the partnership, although such ail account has been demanded since the arrival of defendants in Sydney. Th defendants refuse to recognise the plaintiff as still being a partner, and deny that he has any interest in the airplane or any profits made since the plaintiff left America. The plaintiff therefore claims that the Court should declare that the partnership still exists, that it may be dissolved, that an account may be taken of the partnership assets, which may be sold forthwith, and that some person may be appointed receiver and manager of the partnership funds and assets. An affidavit sworn by Mr. Anderson states that between October, 1927, and January, 1928, he advanced more than 3,000 dollars for the purposes of the partnership, that none of that money has been repaid, and that he has received no share of any profits made by the partnership. Tt also states that subsequent to June 22, Mr. C. T. P. Ulm offered him what purported to be two cheques, each for an amount of English money equivalent to 1,000 dollars, which the defendant alleged to be in full settlement of plaintiff’s interest in the trans-Pacific flight. These cheques and each of them plaintiff refused to accept. Mr. Hilliard, on behalf of the plaintiff, has instructed Mr. Maughan, K.C,. and Mr. L. C. Hutchinson as counsel. Mr. Eric Campbell, of Campbell and | Campbell, solicitors, who is acting for i the defendants, stated that his clients I refused to recognise the claims of Mr. Anderson. They further maintained that the monoplane Southern Cross was a gift to them personally from Mr. Hancock.