The Oriental Press Company were plaintiffs in a case which came before his Honour Judge Grain at H. Supreme Court on Thursday claiming $2,210.88 from Mr., A. Paige for goods sold and delivered and printing work done between September 4 and 29, Mr. J. G. Priestwool, for phaintiffs, put in an affidavit showing that the work had been done and that plaintiffs considered there was no defence to the action, and asked for judgment, under rule 101.
Defendant explained that to wards the end of August he approached Mr. P. L. Bickel, assistant manager of the Oriental Press, with a view to publishing a paper called "Shanghai Answers," and he agreed to become a partner and to put in Tls. 2,000. There was no deed of -partnership and the arrangement was only verbal, Mr. Bickel not wishing to have his connexion with the paper disclosed, and for this reason witness said nothing about it to anybody. The present debts were incurred in connexion with this paper, which failed. Had it made profits, Mr. Bickel would have shared the: When the account was sent in witness wrote to Mr. Bickel reminding him of the partnership, which he disclaimed.
His Lordship—How much did you put into the paper?
Witness—Roughly about $2,000. I paid three months' salary to one min, provided $900 in prizes, paid Tls. 110 rent, and other expenses.
Mr. Priestwood—This partnership was never in any way _communicated to the Oriental' Press.
Tt was kept secret.
Atte was because Mr.
Priestwood—You never mentioned the partnership—until after the debt, had been incurred and they pressed you for payment.
Defendant—Not in writing.
His Honour—I think defendant has shown that he has a defence to the action.
Mr. Priestwood—Defendant admits that the contract was made between himself and plaintiffs and that they knew of no partnership. But that' affords no defence, because he would be liable as partner. Further, his alleged partner is an: American subject, not under the jurisdiction of this court, and if defendant has any claim against him he should sue him in the American court for contribution or indemnity. Tu lish law partners are jointly ble for the debts of a partnership, irrespective of what they The most that could be done would he to stay proceedings until Mr. Bickel is made a party, and inasmuch as he is not subject to ihe jurisdiction of this court cannot bring him here.
His Honour said he was satisfied defendant had a defence to the action, and made an order for the filing of a defence.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.