Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1901-05-04

the 18th day of March, 1901, in the sum
of sixty and 57-100 dollars. The appeal
was heard upon the report Of the mag
istrate, the pleadings, the written testi-
mony taken by the magistrate, duly
signed by the witnesses, the judgment
below, and the notice and grounds of
appeal from said judgment, and agree
ment of counsel for plaintiff and de-
fendant, Riddle. appellant. The plead
ings were written, the complaint specif-
ically alleging that an actual partner
ship existed between D. W. Hicks and
r. B. Riddle, between the 9Th day of
September, 1899. and the 1st day of
January, 1900, between which dates the
plaintiff sold and delivered to said
Hicks and Riddle, as partners, at their
request, goods. wares and merchandise,
of the value Of one hundred and forty
four and 29-100 dollars, reduced by
credits to the sum of sixty and 5I-100
dollars. the amount sued for. The an
swer specifically denied that any part
nership had ever existed between r. B..
Riddle and D. w. Hicks, under the firm
name of Grist Cousins, or under any
other firm name, during the periods
specified in the complaint, or at all. No
evidence whatsoever was offered before
the magistrate to sustain the allegation
of an actual partnership, as alleged in
the complaint; but the uncontroverted
evidence of both Hicks and Riddle
showed conclusively that there never
had been a partnership between them.
I, therefore, find, as a fact, that the
said R. B. Riddle and D. w. Hicks were
not partners at the times mentioned,
and alleged in the complaint and
have never been actual partners. The
plaintiff, nevertheless, sought to hold
Riddle to the liability of partner, not
withstanding he was never an actual
partner, because he was advertised as
a member Of the firm of Grist Cousins
in a newspaper published at Yorkville,
S. c., THE YoRKvILLE ENQUIRER in
the issue of said paper dated Septem-
Der 30th, 1899, and again on January
goth, 1900. Riddle did not know when
the advertisement was inserted or
when it terminated, the same having
been done without his knowledge or
consent. The testimony also failed to
show that Riddle, although subscrib-
er to the paper, ever saw the advertise
ment between September 9Th, 1899, and
January goth, 1900, but did show that
the plaintiff, before the first insertion
of the advertisement Of Sept. 9Th, 1899,
had commenced to sell the firm of Grist
Cousins goods, and consequently he
could not have sold the goods on the
faith of Riddle having been held out as
a partner, for he began selling before
Riddle had ever been held out. find,
as a matter of fact, that the holding
out Of Riddle was not done by himself,
nor with his knowledge and consent,
and I find as a further and additional
fact, that the plaintiff was not misled
by the advertisement in THE YORK
VILE ENQUIRER, and did not extend
credit to the firm Of Grist Cousins on
the faith of R. B. Riddle being a part
ner. find further, that throughout the
period stated in the complaint that D.
w. Hicks constituted the firm of Grist
Cousins, and was the sole proprietor of
said business. 1t is, therefore, ordered
and adjudged and decreed. that the ap-
peal of the defendant, r. B. Riddle, be
and is hereby sustained, and that the
complaint of the plaintiff be and is
hereby dismissed, with all costs, includ-
ing the costs of this appeal"