The Portland daily press., 1878-10-09

Favorable Decision for a Portland Firm.
In the Superior Court at Montreal Judge
johnson has recently decided the suit of Robert
Kane vs.. A. r. Wright, ct al, for the defend
ants.
The facts of the case are as follows In
January, 1877, the Quebec Harbor Commits
sioners called for tenders for the construction
of certain public works of an extensive char
acter about the harbor, including some dredg-
ing work of difficult kind. The plaintiff is
gentleman resident at Montreal, and the de-
PENDANTS Mr.. A. Il. Wright of New York, and
Col. Edward Moore, the well known Portland
contractor. The plaintiff alleges that about
the 27th of January, 1877, he and Mr.. Angus
Mcdonald and the defendants formed a part
nership, each having one-fourth interest, the
object of the partnership bein. to tender for
and construct the improvements, and the
duration of the same to be the length of time
necessary for such construction, the copartner-
ship name to be Moore, Wright s. Co, and that
under that name tender was made January
3lst, 1877. Supplementary tenders were after
wards called for from the parties who had ten
dered, and among them Mr.. Peters; that the
defendants were empowered to act for the firm,
and to make the supplementary tender on the
most advantageous terms. He further alleges
that the defendants, after said tender was
made, having in some way got wind that Peters
had the best chance of OBJ aiming the contract,
they (defendants) show ed Peters their figures,
thus enabling him to get the dredging with
them, cutting out plaintiff and his copsrtners
from all participation, and getting for them
selves (defendants) alone what all members of
the firm were entitled to, and brings his action
for the violation of partnership contract and
lays his damages at 5000.
The plea admits the tender and supplement-
airy tender, and then sets up substantially that
the tender made by defendants and copartners
was not accepted, and they became perfectly
free after its rejection to take sub-contract
under Peters, who got the contract from the
commissioners, and though they appear as CO.
partners of Peters, that course was taken at
the suggestion of the commissioners and en-
gineers, to facilitate direct payment to them
instead of paying through Peters. The de-
PENDANTS deny all imputation of fraud or false
dealing towards plaintiff or Mcdonald, and
claim that although they were not held to SO,
they actually invited plaintiff aud Mcdonald
to join with them in their sub-contract, but did
not get their answer until they had completed
their arrangements with Peters, when it was
too late to re-arrange with plaintiff or Nc
Donald.
Judge johnson says 'If the tender of plain
and his copartners was bona 1ide rejected, there
Was an end Of the object of the agreement
between them" "Plaintff puts his
case on the distinct ground of deceit and con-
sequent profit made by breach of the partner
ship agres ment. 1 have paid. every attention
in my power to the evidence and to the argu-
ment adduced from the correspondence. There
was something perhaps to excite Mr. Kane's
sur prise and even suspicion; but 1 must say
that feel the right Of evidence is with the
defend ants" "It would seem that
the defendants felt for plaintiffs disappoint-
ment and tried to give them share along with
themselves in the sub-contract with Peters; bat
that fell through without any apparent fault of
theirs. There cannot be doubt in my mind
that the rejection of the first tender put an end
to the interest of the parties, unless that rejac-
ton was deceitfully brought about, of which
do not see sufioien evidence Action dis.
missed with costs.