SUPREME COURT-CIVIL SESSIONS.

West Coast Times, Issue 1656, 20 January 1871, Page 2

SUPREME COURT- CIVIL SESSIONS.

«o(Before His Honor Mr Justice Gresson.) TnuKSDAv, Jak. 19. His Honor took his seat on the Bench at ten o'clock. noTcmsoN v. Sinclair and jack. Tn thi-i cise — a claim of partnership — witnesses for the defending were called by defendants' solicitors, Mr Button and Mr Harvey, and were cross-examined by the plaintiff's solicitor, Mr South. The witnesses were M Lean "Watt Jack, one of the defendants, and John Lnzir. Evidence taken by commission was also read.

The examination of the witnesses occupied until after I o'clock, and the Court adjourned until 2 p.m.

Mr Button, on the Court resuming, addressed the special jury. As he had said in his opening address, the plaintiff did not seek to recover by the force of his title, but by the weakness of the defendants' title involved in the destruction of the books of the firm. It was clear that he was perfectly well aware, before he made hi< claim, that he knew the book* were destroyed by Jack— destroyed very stupidly and foolishly — and that that was the only ground upon which he could for a moment pretend to a verdict. The vaguest statements possible were made by the plaintiff with regard to the partnership, although, had it existed, it would have involved contracts and bonds equal to large sums of money. If the jury believed Robert Sinclair's evidence they must give a verdict for the defendants. If they believed even the plaintiffs evidence they must give a verdict for the defendants, because the question was, had any agreement been made that Robert Sinclair should enter into partnership with the plaintiff. No agreement had been made, but, according to the plaintiff's version, Robert Sinclair took his place in the firm as a matter of course. The question was, had an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant been entered into, by which he entered into partnership in May, 1866. Robert Sinclair denied that any such agreement was made, or that he ever was a partner— be was simply an employe, and drew his wages. Jack's evidence was corroborative, and contained no inconsistency.

He did not deny the destruction of the books, and he (Mr' Button) admitted that it was a most suspicious circumstance but, according to the plaintiff's view, they must have entered into a conspiracy and perjured themselves to defeat his claim. The matter was, however, quite capable of explanation. After the plaintiff knew the books were destroyed, he set up a claim for partnership. Knowing they were destroyed, and knowing also that there had been a dissolution, what a handle it gave him ! If the jury believed the defendants were conspirators and had perjured themselves, let them give a verdict for the plaintiff. If they could not believe that, they must give a verdict for defendants. Mr South replied. He hid anticipated a conflict of evidence, and there had been this conflict, but the fac's, he estimated, were distinctly in favor of the plaintiff. He dated the partnership from the sth May 1866, when Sinclair and Hutchison were working at Reeves's cottage. It was then that the last contract for labor only was concluded, and it was a singular fact that £100 should he lent by the plaintiff about the time the defendants were entering into the first considerable contract. Finding they had not sufficient funds, and finding that the plaintiff had some money, whether he volunteered it or not, it was arranged that they should have the use of that sum, and was it likely that the sum was simply handed over without any consideration whatever ? There was not a gentleman in the jurybox who could understand the possibility of lending money without interest. There was not one in the box who could understand such an absurdity. (Plaintiff's counsel : A compliment, certainly.) It was nothing \mcomplimentary. They were business men, and would regard it as a business transaction. There was no interest given, and he would leave the jury to make their own deductions from that infinitesimal point. That was the starting-point of the partnership, and Mr Jack had taken very good care to destroy every source from which it might have been gleaned whether Mr Hutchison had been recognised and duly entered as a partner, or in what light he was recognised and acted. His Honor congratulated the jury upon the fact of a tedious and even drowsy case drawing near to its clo s e, and also upon the recommendable brevity of the speeches of counsel. He then proceeded to read and review the evidence given during both days of the trial, drawing attention to its prominent points pro and con, and left it *o the jury to say in which direction the weight of the testimony went. The jury retired for half-an-hour, and returned a verdict which answered in the nesative the issue put to them, which was — " Did the plaintiff and defendants enter into co-partnership on or about the date mentioned in the declaration, as contractors, builders, carpenters, and joiners, under the style or firm of Sinclair and Jack, and agree to carry on business as such at Hokitika ?"

The verdict was, 'therefore, in favor of the defendants, The Court was then adjourned.