LIABILITY TO COMPANY

Waikato Times, Volume 90, Issue 14029, 4 April 1919, Page 5

LIABILITY TO COMPANY

WAS THERE A PARTNERSHIP?

A CONFLICT OF TESTIMONY,

At the Supreme Court, this morning before His Honour, Mr. Justice Cooper and a jury, of twelve, the New Zealand Loan, and Mercantile Ageney Ltd., auctioneers and commission agents, brought a claim against Herbert Cunningham, of Honikhvi, near Otorohanga, farmer and G. W. Morley, of Durham street, Auckland, agent. Mr. F. A. Swarbrick appeared for the plaintiff company, and Mr. W. D. M. Glaister, of Auckland, for one of the defendants, Morley. The claim was for £648 3s 2d for cattle sold by the company-to the defendants. Mr. Swarbrick said that the only question for the jury was as to whether a partnership existed between punningham and Morley. Cunningham had not denied the claim and had not filed any statement of defence. Morley denied that the partnership existed, but the principal witness in the case for the plaintiffs was Cunningham who, counsel submitted, would give evidence to prove that the partnership had been entered into between himself and Morlev and we,s existent at the time that the stock was bought. It was admitted that at the time Cunningham bought the stock from the company, the latter had no knowledge of Morley in the matter, but that would not affect the jury in deciding the question. The evidence would show that the reason why Morley wanted his name kept secret was the fact that he was .indebted to the Auckland office.

Herbert Cunningham admitted that the stock werebougftt. The money was owing by him and also by Morley. The stock were bought in December and January last and wer e taken to Honikiwi and placed on Morley' S. property. Witness had no interest in the property, but had purchased the stock in his* own name, because Morley could not get credit from the company, as he had a disputed account with them. Morley had told witness that. Witness was to look after the stock and. by arrangement with Morley, they were to halve the profits of the stock. Morley had arranged to place £SOO in the Bank of New Zealand at Te Awamutu by February 1 Tor the purchase of the stock, the money to go to witness' account. The agreement with Morley was not In writing, as the epidemic'was on at the time it was made. Morley said he could not get the agreement drawn no until the end of the first week in January, as the legal offices were closed, but he would forward the agreement down later. This he did not do. The xiheque (produced) for £414 10s was dishonoured because Morley had not placed the money to witness' credit -at The bank. The cheque was for cattle purchased from the company. ro Mr. Glaister: Witness was now a prisoner at Mt. Eden undergoing an indeterminate sentence on a charge of cattle stealing. He "had not told Morley that he could get £2OOO credit from any of the companies, but may have said that he could get credit. Every letter witness had from Morley was to the effect that he was not to let anyone know thev were in partnership. Morlev knew witness -could not get credit if he (witness) tried to buy n: Morlev's name. Witness did not know*the amount of TMorley's debt to the company. He first became acauainted with Morley in October last, when he visited his p'laee in Auckland in search of a cattle dog. He told Morlev that he wanted a job as manager as he (witness) wanted to get on his feet. As a result -of their investigations witness ivent to report on Morley's Honikiwi farm, but no arrangement was previously made. Morlev gave him £4 to pay his expenses. Witness had no : banking account at Te Awamutu af that time. The arrangement was entered into for witness to go on to the farm as a partner. Before going back witness was aware of the sum the farm had .cost. Morley had not mentioned that he would require £7 or £8 a week ±o pay interest on the mortgage en the Honikiwi farm, and stated that lie was going to mortgage his Waiuku lirm to pay the interest and put the '.<,uiwd money into the bank. Morley And mei tioncd that a son was coming back from the front Mid going on the I aim. Of the profits on the c ttie at uhat t:me witness was to get half. Under the arrangement witness had to Keep the fences in repair. Witness dgam dcniitd that the arrangement was tor him to get a share only after £7 or £8 ) e.r week came out oi the property. The second occasion witness visited the ] -operty was in December, when Morley advanced him £5, which was to be deducted when some of the cattl« were sold. Morley's son ,who was in business in Otorohanga, kept in communication with his father as to witness' movements. Pie bought the stock on December 18 on the rails in the usual manner.. Witness again saw Morley about December 23. when he showed him the sheets from the company of the cattle he had purchased and the value of them. Witness had an account with the Hank of New Zealand at Te Awamutu at this time. He could not state definitely whether it was £45 or £54. but the money was from the sale of some of the cattle bought from the company'-on the 18th. Wit-ess asserted that?"'.'Morley had made inquiries about H ! m--hci<>re he placed him..on.+hc farm. There "ns n Jimit fixed, in ths agreement of'£soo as the liability incurred for -storkr"' MorI.V had sai'd that if he (witness) sold the property he was to get a half share over and aoove its purchasing price. Witness was arrested on January 25 and a writ was served on January 28. On the latter date witness signed n'n order with the Loan Company to sell what stock were on the place. Because Morley had not put the money into the bank 'witness had yielded to the temptation to pick cattle up on the road and sell them. Witness sold the cattle and left the money for the company to collect. (Procedmg). ,