Plaintiff claimed for a declaration for the accounts, claims and matters concerning partnership agreed to by plaintiff and defendant by articles of partnership dated July 1, 1907 and particularly the accounts between the partners relative to the business and affairs of the said partner-He also claimed s declaration that he was entitled under clause 12 of the ssid articles of partnership to require that any dispute or difference between himself and the defendant relative to the matters set out in particulars attached to the writ should be referred to arbitration or determination in. accordance with the provisions of said article, and for the appointment of an arbitrator on behalf of the defendant pursuant to Rale 212 (3) of the rules of Court.
Mr. MeNeill appeared for the plaintiff; defendant was represented by Mr. Douglas.
Mr. McNeill stated that the matter bad already been before Mr. Bourne in Chambers upon summons for the appointment of an arbitrator under the rule mentioned above. That summon: failed, the principal reason being that the notice alleged to have been posted to the defendant never reached him.
The defendant took the position of denying that this was. matter which should be arbitrated apon, An endorsed writ had, therefore, been issued. Mr. Douglas, counsel understood, tended to ask for pleadings. That application, he would oppose.
Mr. Douglas the claims made were not mat came within the clause provi arbitration. Some of the claims made wore by third parties. In the defence that counsel would file there would be defence of misrepresentation ander the Partnership Act of 1890. That would be the chief line of defence.
His Lordship thought. it essential that pleadings should be filed.
Mr. McNeill snbruitted that it was not disputed there was a partnership between plaintiff and defendant, and question whether certain item: should or should not be included was matter to be determined upon arbitra tion. They were the very points that had to be settled by the arbitrator.
Mr. Douglas stated that the chief defence would be that the defen dant was induced to enter into the partnership agreement by misreppresentation. That was a complete defence by itself. Mr. Jones bad had great many irons in the fire, and be was acting as agent for a firm with which contracts were entered into.
His, Lordship remarked that defendant was entitled to put in any defence he liked.
Mr, McNeill said that it was difficult for him to see what had moved his Lordship's mind to the conclusion that the question of what ought to be
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.