The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1876-11-21 00:00:00

then failed. pleading that he had eaPetre'e in consequence
of his heeding a huuee, and he tell hint he ought to
mortgage the house. As to the iii irking out in the hook,
she had told Mr. reelihen hit had d wrong t.i mark
these items out. ledge asked defeielent what he Ilia
ta ohtain eicgs at the lime when, he said, plaintiff did not
sopply him. —ll)..aeoi.sat replied th it he dealt with Mr.
Semen, and many other panda a.. rlie Han I. —fits
Honour finally said he had no .mute there had been an
atteeipt to take adveetage of plaietiff not having entered
the items when the ...lg. were ',melee-I.—Verdict for
to be paid •t es.. per !WOW..
it askkiyA a Co. v. ItaadaU.e Co. -Grebe for V is. 1 lid., I
share of pr. the—Mr. Howard for plsiutiffe Mr. Hanna
for defendaute.—Esch eimitiaity were tishcrinen, one I
party owning the S. sr, end the -.there the Aueie,and Mr. I
Howard stated that, in order net to follow eaell other too :
closely and spoilt each other's thhing, there was a kind of
partnership entered into between them, by which the
one-third share of the fish caoglit, which belonged to the
menavere to be equallyslivide.l between the two COM panieg,
whichever caught the fa.—Mr. Hamm, being aseed by
the judge what we,, his defence, Raid that it was that
there was a separation ef the partnership—Mr. Howard
stated that the claim was for half .4 one-thinl share of
the frith caught on the sth July. and which fetched
.Cl 9 Rashleighs company hail on a previous
occasion shared with defendants the third of the proceeds
of the fish they caught, so there could not be any fairness
in the other company saving the partnership woe over,
when they themselves had received the behefit of the
partnenship. Mr. Hamm took the legal objection that if
the parties were partners they coal not sue each other at
law. —Mr. lloward replied that thin was not a strict
partuerehip ; but only an agreement to divide profits.—
Mr. Hanna urged that it was o partnership, and quoted
"chitty" on the point. --Mr. Howard replied that though
partners used lint to be able to proceed teen:est eaeh
other "at law," yet they could in equity, and, since the
laming ef the Judicature Act, law and equity were
Wendel—His Honour held a similar view.—Mr. Hanno
then contended that the parties should have taken
another form of proceedings, under the equity powers of
the judge.--The Obieetioll Was oversruled, and the judge
suggested that the partite ml Id settle the matter out of
Court—Mr. Howard Was perfectly ready to leave the
matter to some person acquainted with the cuetonis of
the Beach ; but Mr. Hanne replied that he had a good
defence oil Om merits., and the Wee then procealtet
Mr. Richard Reahleigh, of Chickerel, owner of the Stir
fishing Boat, said defendants owned the Annie. At the
annurenceineut of the Reason they had a mutual agrees
ment to divide one-third part oi the catches between the
two crews. They bail such an arrangement the eunimer
before, and then the Star crew CA/ worth
with the Annie's crew, though the latter were not
present when the fish were cait.ret. Randall's puty on
the fifth July caught over Iltl worth, and plaintiffs
claimed half one-third of that. The partnership lasted
until they agreed to part, and up to this time they had no
notice to do so. He saw Randall About it; but Randall
would not give his party their share, although the Star
crew had previously given thein a share of everything
plaintiffs hall caught--Crosieexamined : Plaintiffs had not
this summer caught anything in the atewnce of defend-
ante ; but they did last summer. On the fourth July both
companies were on the beach: hut he did not hear of any
row between the two companies. The partnership was
dissolved alter the fish were caught. Randall came and
told him his party had caught Po many lids, and after this
the companies would have nothing to do with each ether.
The crews did not part on the fourth July. They had
eaten a ham together, and left the beach sortie time in the
evening. There was • conversation about the way in
which the net should be shot; liut there was no row. I/id
not hear of any challenge to fight. —lto-examined : Had no
notice of any dissolution of partnership, though he was
the person to whom the notice should be given. Was
willing to leave the matter to any respectable man, who
knew the rules of the beach—John Marsh, of Chickerel,
parish clerk, was called to prove the custom ; but this was
admitted by defendanta—Williarn Harvey, fisherman,
and not belonging to either crew, said he was on the beach
with the crews on the fourth, and heard nothing about
the partnership being broken up.--Crmis examined : He
was with them all the time, and they came away
together, and he would swear there was no conversation
about breaking up the partnership.—Mr. Hanna contended
that express notice of the disaolution had been riven.
There was a great row between the crews on the fourth
July, and the partnership Wei then and there dissolved.
Nut onle so; there was a sloppy sea on the fifth July,
Irendall s crew were unable of themselves ter take the fish,
' and had to call other crews to their aid; those others came
and helped them, and had shared with them. —E lward
' Randall said there was a row on the fourth July between
his crew and Raahleigh's, about the way in which they
: were to shoot the net. Four joint owners of the Star
were there, and he told them 'Your host may stay and
' rot ; I'll never touch her any more." From that time his
crew had nothing to do with the other. He afterwards
saw Northover at the Three Mariners Inn, they hel a
row, and there was an offer to fight in the allotment
ground.—The Judge asked witness whether be was the
captain? To which he replied No.—His Ilenour eaked
what right witness had to speak on behalf of the crew
Witness said—se one of the coinpany.—Mr. Ihume urged
that any partner had a right to give notice of a dimointion
of partnership.—ln answer to Mr. Hossard, witness said
there frequently were rows on the heat:h.—His Honour
supposed that in nautical life, rows were • sign of geed
fellowship. (Laughter) In answer to Mr. Ifeward
witness said lie hal phi Mr. Reehleigh the !lumber of
fish he had naught—Job llosiwll, one of the crew of the
Annie, cerroborated Randaire statement as to tlut row and
the dissolution partnenihip. They used etrong
language—The Judge W.dl You may call it nautirel
language. (Laughter.)—lly Mr. Reward: This nautical
language was not very strong I—Witness slid it was net.
—The Judge: You may say it was the ordinary
vocaliulery. (Laughter.) —Another wituese said the b. ails
custom involved using each others boat,, and when
Randall sail he would not touch the boat any more, it
meant that they parts:AL—re' Mr. Howard : Unleas it was
rough, each party used its own boat. —The Jit.ige nail that,
amuming the witness !Caudell gave Keith a notice as he
said, it was not such a notice as should terminate the
arrangement. The item was not even the leader
of the WV he was excited by beer and squaiddiug, nail
if in that state, he chow, to may what he hid stated, it was
not • legal natice.—Mr. Haunt: sail plaintiff's e ew
5h0w...1 by their al•sence fnan the beach next day, that
tile arrangement was concluded.—Mr. Iteshleigh was
again rallrel, and said he was unwell next day, and came
away from the beach. —Mr. Ranee said that not moot the
plaintiff's crew came near the fishing on the following day,
and this was in consequence of the arrangement being
well uniterstesl to lie rencluded. The defelelant's crew
svere not streng enema' next day total,, ties tish, and they
had to get extraneous all. If a crew Were to stay at
home
and leave others to do all tile work, end yet share
the profits, it vvould he a great enreuragement to lazinme
--The Judge deeeled in 6 air of le:Devi:lg
there wan not sufficient notice to terminate the sigree-
went. All subpoinatel Wel wituesees to have
their cosh; paid. —The defendants were to pay Cl iii a
fortnight and .CI a month af terwarde
JUDGMENT' SUMMONSES.

-..-
Cluartce Lm.—On.lur roducod to a
month.
Clothier v. Gould. —order rettitcoff to 4s. in a fortnight
and Is. a month.
Nliet and Company v. Pearce. —The outer was to pay 10i.
• mouth, and defondant hail paid £2 IM-flu did not
smtwar, and hat only liil live mouths.—Ortlcr for com-
mittal, but to he suspended on payment of s*. • fortnight,
and ss. • month.