When the case was resumed next day, Saturday, before reserving judg= ment, his Lordship said:—"As far as 1 can see, it should be called an agreement, "Tt ip covered so far as the B.C, Lot is concerned by the trans for from Algar & Ca. to the China Really, because that transfer is slimed, scaled, nnd delivered."
"The transfer is a deed, yes," said Mr, Newman.
"phere is no question of the legality of the transfer from, Alyar the China Realty, then?" asked his Lordship.
"Ne," replied Mfr. Newman, "but the other so-called doed operates only as fan equitable instrument. It should be called a memorandum of deposit 'oF an hypothecation."
Mr. Newman said the frst, point wished (o raise was that the partnership's property was not land, but ownership of the equity redemption of the land, "As far as the China Realty knew, Mr. Anderson's business" in the firm was hothing but to look after the fnantial side, and they only connected him with the business of selling land. No' one knew he was a partner in the British Flower Shop, mn other words, the plaintifis may well have thought the business of the venture was land only," remark ted his Lordship. Mr. Newman agreed. Dr. Kew himself bad said that no tone knew of the partnership.
When the transfer was effected, went on Mr, Newman, by the inst mentality of Mr, Anderson alone, and Dr. Kew know of it inter, he then Knew that his partner had com= mitted a fraud; It was the transfer of the land to the China Really without Dr. Kew's acciuiescence that constitute ed the fraud, and Dr. Kew when he Fefrained from taking any steps in the matter, became lable for the frauds of his' partner.
Mr. M. Reader-Harris, appearing for Dr. Kew, said that he would like to deal with two points raised by Mr, Newman, In the first place, there was no evidence, he submitted, that the China Realty knew that Dr. Kew had anything to do with the B.C. Lot.
Mr. Newman:—"T agree.
The last point he brought up, went on Mr. Reader-Harris, was a sugges ion that the transfer of the mortgage from the Credit Foncier to the China Realty was a fraud by Mr. Anderson, and that when Dr. Kew knew of it hho should have gone to the plaintiffs. He submitted that there had been no fraud; in any mortgage, the mortjgagee could transfer it' to. another mortgagee without giving notice to the mortgagor, although he should Let the latter know later. It was! similar to an, assignment "of debt. Mr, Anderson's fraud lay in making! 'a new mortgage for Ts. 35,000 without Dr. Kew's knowledge.
"My learned friend is quite right," replied Mr. Newman, "but the point of my argument was that the fraud Tay in letting Anderson get credit from the China Realty and not telling them that he was going to set up. this defence of partnership."
Judgment was reserved.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.