Hide Article Text (OCR)
Continued in the Supreme Court before His Honour The Chief Justice. THE EVIDENCE GIVEN. His Honour Finds there was Partnership, but Registrar will take accounts. The hearing of the suit of Mrs Catherine Nunes Field against W.N Meeks was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday before His Honour the Chief Justice. The plaintiff a ‘widow, is asking for a declaration that she is a partner in the business conducted’ by the defendant, for an account and for a dissolution of the tnership. The defence to the suit that there has been no partner ship. That, the money which the ntiff advanced was by way of a n. ‘AB on te previous day Mr. F. C lingon and the Hon. J. A. G. instrvected by Mr. W. Baggett appeared for the _— plaintiff, Mr. H. M. Radcliffe instruct “by Messrs. Milholland, Ashen and Stone represented the de ant e defence was continued. William Nathaniel Meeks the de t testified. He said he had the plaintiff for some years. In September, 1917, he was manager of Mr.Altamont Dolphy’s business at Ish Town. About that time he y the plaintiff and had a conversa with her about Mr. Dolphy's . Witness said he told her business was for sale. That Grace were negotiating for the use and that they would only if he (witness) remained as . Mrs. Field suggested Gat Seconia purchase the business since she should like him to remain ish Town. Witness informed at it was impossible as the as of the business were worth £ 12 ant ‘he did not have the money. plaintiff took him aside and e@ehe would ‘lend him £ 1,500. tiff took him aside as a stranger present. He never informed her that Dolphy’s business had made 2,000 profits. The plaintiff never that she would join and the business. At a subse t interview there was no say that they should both put the business. He told her that had seen Mr. Dolphy, and had ar to purchase a portion of the ess. He did not tell,her the of the business was £ 5,000. At time was there any suggestion of Partnership. In September, 1917, a plaintiff advanced him £ 1,500. The plaintiff also gave him a, lot of Properties. The sale was coa led between the 1st and 8th of ee Between the payment to Saneone for her , far anything might happer’ him. She suggested that he should out a life policy and he did so £ 1,000. He handed the policy to plaintiff. This was before the intif? went to Mr. Lake. There no discussion of a partnership yet before they went to Mr. ©. He remembered the interview Mr. Lake's office. There was a ‘L GY SYLE AND AN ASSIGN MENT of the life policy. There was nothing sad in Mr. Lake's office about the plaintiff being a partner. She said nothing about being a partner. Mr. Lake never said, *‘Meeks, Mrs. Field has refised to sign as she says she is a partner.”’ What was said was that Mrs. Field was dissatisfied with the rate of interest. Witness asked her how much interest she wanted and 25 per cent, was suggested. Wit ness said this could not go on for ever. That there must be a fixed time. Alterations were accordingly made to the documents that the in terest was to be 25 per cent. for 1 years. He had seen the letter Mrs. field wrote to him. It was not true that Mrs. Field was a quiet partner The 25 per cent interest took into consideration the fact that the plain tiff had signed certain acceptances. At the time Mr. Dolphy had received the £ 1,500. Witness was in posses sion of the stock at the time. It was not true to say that he had put no money into the business. He had mortgaged his properties as collater al security for the purchase of the business from Dolphy. Mrs. Field never claimed any right of partner ship at the interview at Mr. Lake’s office. She never shared any of the responsibilities or burdens of the business. Prior to his writing the letter of the Sth of November, there was an understanding between the plaintiff and himself, viz., that he was to give her something to Hve on out of the business. He was on very friendly terms with the plaintiff. After he received the letter from the plaintiff he went to her house and saw her. He went the same evening and took the letter. He spoke to the plaintiff and showed his annoyance. He read certain paragraphs of the letter and the plaintiff said the in terpretations he had put on certain paragraphs of the letter were not quite right. He handed the plaintif the letter and she tore it up, saying “let bygones be bygones.”” Except the parts of the letter (produced) mark ed in inverted commas the other portions of the letter appeared to be similar to that which the plaintiff had written. At the interview at the plaintiff's house they never discussed anything about partnership and that accounts would be settled in two years time. It was not agreed that the plaintiff should receive 25 per cent, until the debts of the business were paid off. On the 10th of No vember the agreement between him self and Mr. Dolphy was signed. Mrs. Field signed a document as surety. She raised the objection. A few days later he signed a Bill of Sale which Mr. Lake sent him also an assign ment in respect to a life policy. The business was carried on thereafter by him. Besides the £ 1,500 which she lent him the plaintiff also advanced him £ 109 and £ 290. All the moneys had been repaid. The plaintiff had never claimed to be a partner and had made no other claim except in respect to her interest of 25 per cent. The debts of the business had not been paid off. At the time the writ was filed the debts of the busi ness eanted to about £ 12,000 and the assets £ 14,000. He offered to re pay the plaintiff her £ 1,500 because she was disagreeable and he thought he could repay the amount hence the letter he wrote her in October 1920. THE DEFENDANT CROSS-EXAM INED. Cross-examined by Mr. Smith the defendant said at the interview at Mr. Lake’s office the policy for £ 500 in the Jamaica Mutual Life Assur ance Company had not been issued. Mrs. Field went to Mr. Lake's office to approve the documents. Mr. Lake was his solicitor. The agreement for purchase from Mr. Dagapiy was sign ed at the plaintff’s house. Mrs. Field signed the document. Risden, the at testing witness to the document, was not present bet he witnessed Mrs. Wield's signature as he knew her writing. He gave the Colonial Bank an inventory of the properties owned by the plaintiff but did not remem ber if he gave same to the Royal Bank of Canada. He would not swear that he did not give the Royal Bank of Canada the information. The years 1917 and 1918 were two good busi ness years, EVIDENCE OF MR. LAKE. Horace Alexander Lake, a solicitor said he was,a member of the firm of Lake and Nunes, solicitors. On the 7th November, 1917, Mrs. Field at tended at his office. He was acting on behalf of both the plaintiff and the defendant. Mr. Tomlinson said he was object ing to Mr. Lake saying what trans pired between Mr. Lake and the plaintiff for whom he was acting. Mr. Radcliffe said the objection was most extraordinary. The plain tiff had given the evidence herself and what objection could there be to Mr. Lake's evidence. The Chief Justice pointed out that the matter was left to Mr. Lake. He could claim privilege. He was leav ing the matter entirely to Mr. Lake. Proceeding Mr. Lake said he drew up certain documents on the instruc tions of the defendant. This was about a few days before the begin ning of November, 1917. Then the defendant wrote him on the 6th No vember telling him to expect the plaintiff. He would like to be given an opportunity of showing from his correspondence that if there was ever any private partnership it was not revealed to him. The Chief Justice: Oh that is al right Mr. Lake there is no imputa tion against your reputation. Mr. Lake: Thank you sir. I sup pose you have seen the plaintiff's let ter to me of 1st July and my reply of 8th July, 1918, showing that up to § months after they first came to me she led me to believe the money was a loan. The Chief Justice: Yes. I have seen those letters. Mr. Lake: I hope you will do me the personal favour of seeing that same is inserted because those who do not take the trouble to read be tween the lines of the whole evi dence are apt to come to a wrong conclusion so far as my part is con cerned. Proceeding Mr. Lake said the plain tiff came to his office the next day and he submitted two drafts—one a Bill of Sale and the other an as signment—in respect to two life policies. After the plaintiff read the drafts she did not mention anything about purchasing the business along with Mr. Meeks. He had no recollec tion of Mrs. Field asserting that she was a partner. He never said, ‘Meeks Mrs. Field won't sign as she claims to be a partner.” Her only objection to the document was as to the rate of interest.leeks came in and then there was a discussion. We told the plaintiff that the deeds should be re corded. That the Bill of Sale should be recorded in order to be effective. Meeks said the recording of the docu ment would affect his credit and the increased rate of interest to 25 per cent. was due to the fact that the Pill of Sale was not to be recorded. He did not know who suggested the increased rate of interest, but the suggestion was made as also the ex tension of the time of repayment. He (witness) never suggested that Mrs. Field should be a quiet partner for 10 years. He knew nothing of the private transactions between Mrs. Field and Mr. Meeks. He was not aware of the position of “Mater and Son”. The parties met in his office as Mrs. Field and Mr. Meeks. The only discussion was in respect to the interest on the loan. He was kept in the dark as to their private transac tions and he was kept in the dark as to the alleged partnership up to July last year. He first knew of it when Mr. Baggett Gray paid him a surprise visit. At the interview Mrs. Field never suggested that she should have a solicitor of her own. The matter was only an ordinary Bill of Sale and there was no conflict of in terest. He subsequently engrossed the documents and sent them to Mrs. Field for signature. The documents had never been returned to him. Croes examined by Mr. Tomlinson the witness said his instructions from the defendant were to prepare a Bill of Sale and an assignment in respect to life policies with regard to a loan from her. He kept no written record of the interview. He would have re membered it if the plaintiff had voiced any disappointment. He ex plained the effect of the documents to the plaintiff. He did not remember if the defendant told him that Mrs. Field and himself had bought Dol ply's business and that the plaintif was a partner. From start to finish impression was tot the amount advanced by Mrs. Field to the de fendant was by way of a loan. The Chief IJnstics said it was quite clear Mr. Lake had no knowledge of the private transactions between the parties. He was merely asked to pre pare certain documents to which the plaintiff took exception. The Court here adourned for lunch on the resumption Mr. Radcliffe addressed the Court on behalf of the defendant, he said according to the plaintiff's version she put in £ 1,500 in partnership with the defendant to purchase the business from Altamont Dolphy She also stated that when she went to Mr. Lake's office she ex pressed dissatisfaction with the documents which were submitted to her. That she expected to have sub mitted partnership documents. He would, however, call the court's at tention to the fact that Mr. Lake in his evidence stated that there was no discussion whatever as to any partnership that Mrs. Field ex pressed dissatisfaction as to the amount of interest she was to re ceive, and it was agreed that she should receive 25 per cent. Interest. He submitted that the plaintiff had shifted her ground from time to time and there was nothing to sup port the existence of a partnership. Any subsequent letter written could not override the Bill of Sale. The Chief Justice: It has not been executed. Mr. Radcliffe: There is the as signment of the life policies. The Chief Justice: It has not been executed. Proceeding, Mr. Radcliffe said the plaintiff had been drawing interest of 25 per cent. The Chief Justice: That is a nominal sum fixed pending adjust ment of accounts between the parties. Mr. Radcliffe: But she can't blow hot and cold. She cannot re adiate the documents and then take take any benefits thereunder. The Chief Justice said he did not see how the defendant could get over the letter he wrote in Novem ber, 1917. In that document he clearly admitted the existence of a partnership. The fact that the de fendant offered in October to repay the money showed that he himself did not believe in the validity of the documents prepared in Mr Lake's office. Continuing, Mr... Radcliffe said the whole attitude of 4:the defendant showed that he did not recognize that there was a partnership CHIEF JUSTICE'S COMMENTS. The Chief Justice: The defendant took up the position that all the documents were nominal, but he told the plaintiff not to worry, there was a partnership between them. There would have been a case to argue but for the letter which your client wrote. Mr. Radcliffe: The plaintiff had a great affection for the defendant. The Chief Justice: Yes, but how has it been repaid? Proceeding, Mr. Radcliffe went on to comment on the high rate of in terest, viz.. 25 per cent., and sub mitted that it was in consideration if the loan made the acceptances which the plaintiff had endorsed. The Chief Justice: No. It was merely an advance until the docu ments were adjusted. Mr. Radcliffe here read a letter which the plaintiff had written to Mr. Lake relative to a loan of £ 100 which the defndant had asked her for. In the letter the plaintiff asked Mr. Lake to write her a letter ad vising her not to make the loan to the defendant. Was this consistent with a partnership? The Chief Justice said if there was no partnership would the plain tiff have advanced 4,500, then £ 290, signed an acceptance for £ 2,500, and ultimately one for £ 3,900, and also make herself liable for fully £ 6,000 without any securi ty? The whole attitude of the plain tiff was consistent with a partner ship, and this is confirmed by a let ter which the defendant had written. Continuing, Mr. Radcliffe submit ted that until the plaintiff wrote the letter about a partnership existing there was nothing to show that she had done anything to support a partnership. ‘There were no en quiries by the plaintiff as to how the business was going, on. The Chief Justice: But there is the letter which’ the defendant ,him self wrote, and which fully supports the view of the plaintiff that there was a partnership between the parties. Mr. Radcliffe continued. He re ferred to the letter which the plain tiff had written to the defendant and her attitude. All the difference was over the interest payable. The Chief Justice No; she com plained about finding herself not being mentioned as a partner, but only a creditor. Mr. Radcliffe continued with his arguments. He read from the letter which the defendant wrote. The Chief Justice: It is stated that ‘‘my reason for keeping you out of the business.'’ According to your client the plaintiff was not in the business, then what was his rea son for writing as he had done? Proceeding, Mr. Radcliffe submit ted that on the whole of the evidence it was clear that there was no part nership between the plaintiff and the defendant. That everything pointed to a loan being advanced by the plaintiff for which she received 25 per cent interest. In conclusion, Mr. Radcliffe sub mitted that if His Honour decided a partnership, he would submit that there could be no division of profits until all the debts were paid. The Chief Justice: I do not agree with you. During the course of the argu ment the Chief Justice threw out the suggestion that if he should de cide that there was a partnership and he would so decide—wheter it was not in the best interests of the parties that there should be a settlement rather than a reference to the Registrar. It would only mean extra expenses. Mr. Tomlinson consulted with the plaintiff and informed the court that his client was not prepared to con tinue in business with the defend ant. The Chief Justice: I have not suggested that. During a conference between the plaintiff and her legal advisers, the Chief Justice remarked that the business was a good one. It had carefully been worked up by the de fendant, and he did not propose to ruin it. The counsel in the case had a con ference with their respective sides, after which Mr. Tomlinson said they ‘were asking the court to make a declaration that there was a part nership. CHIEF JUSTICE'’S FINDING. The Chief Justice said he had de cided to find that there was a part nership existing between the parties, but he should like the account to be gone into first and then he could make one declaration. Therefore he had decided to refer the matter to the Registrar. An order was accordingly made by the Chief Justice directing the Registrar to take the accounts in respect to the business of W. Meeks Company from the taking over of the business by the defendant to the present date, and also from the tak ing over to the 11th of May, when Writ was filed. The other reliefs claimed to abide the taking of the accounts. The final decision of the Chief Justice will be given when the Regis trar has filed his report.
Newspaper Details
Kingston Daily Gleaner
Kingston, Kingston, JM
Fri, Oct 28, 1921
Page 4
Full Page
Clipped by
Jeffrey M.
JM 13 Jul 2026
Other Publications Near Kingston, Kingston
Kingston Gleaner
Kingston Weekly Gleaner
Kingston Outlook Magazine
Colonial Standard
De Cordovas Advertising Sheet
