The case came up far hearing Monday. morning Supreme Court, before Judge G. W. King, in which E, Carroll, trading. under the name of P. Heath & Con asks from R. K, Raphael a declara~ tion that: the partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant was iseclved on August 31, 1027, and fan account. be. taken of the partership. dealings between the two parties.
Mr, M. Reader Harris: appeared for the plaintiff, while Mr. Tycho Wing represented the defendant, Mr. Harris asked to have "an affidavit from the defendant. that, as far as he had been advised, he was not partner, struck off, oF otherwise opportunity given the' defendant to swear on oath if he were partner with the plaintiff or not.
This Mr. opposed on the arounds that it was a question of law and no oath could' be taken-He: said that there had never been 8 partnership between the plaintiff find the defendant legally, whatever they. may have styled themselves, The defendant was an employee on commission basis. and received Percentage of the profits, He Mr, Wing, sid that the two had been connected in business for some time, though at intervals, He further added that there would not only be defence against. this action Dut there would also be a counterclaim for commissions due, Mr. Harris said that as evidence that there was a partnership. had an original letter that the defendant wrote the plaintiff "on retirement from partnership," asking for n statement of account which was sent him, showing large debt due by him to the plaint Me. Wing said that merely styled themselves partners but the defendant had never been Viable as a partner for any losses of the firm. He had received commission and a share of the profits but that did not make him a partner according to law.
Mr. Harris held that there was partnership entered into in 1921, and if the defendant said that he is not now and was not a part-nor, he should make on aMdavit that there was no partnership deed, or swear on oath to that effect, Judge King upheld this ease was adjourned to defence to file the required aMdavit, Wednesday's Session The defendant put in an affidavit on Wednesday to the effect that he was not and never had been partner in the firm, A deed was drawn up in. 1921, but it was never acted upon and was cancelled within six months of its execution. He admitted that had been described as a partner. this being on account of an agreement that he should receive 40 por cent. of the nett profits, but he had not in fact received full payment that rate, and he was counter-
The plaintiff put in an affidavit that the defendant entered into partnership on January 1, 1921, and the partnership agreement had: been acted upon ever since that date (subject to agreed variations) up to February last year, when the defendant gave notice terminating the partnership.
Mr. Wing produced documents which he said were' used in the American Court for China during the course bf another action: which Mr, Carroll. was. concerned, and in which he claimed to be the sole proprietor -of the firm. He argued that, in face of this; there was. am issue and he asked for a partnership, or that there wag not. He: suggested that the case should be put down for trial withs out pleadings, as one party said Was a partnership and the other that-thevewas not, He theres fore made an. order that pleadings were refused, and the plaintiff could Put down the action when he liked,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.