The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-12-20

1904 this motion was dismissed and
time for filing a bill of exceptions ex-
tended. On this the Supreme Court
gave its third decision in the case,
denying a motion of the defendants Ito
dismiss the bill on the ground that the
exceptions taken at the trial were inn
properly Incorporated in the bill That
decision was on the ground that the
exception to the nonsuit required con-
sfderation," and now in its fourth de-
cision the court is of the opinion that
the only exception in the bill which
was presented within the time required
by law is that which was taken to the
dismissal of the motion for a new
trial.
From the conclusion just stated the
court goes on to decide, as stated in
the syllabus thus:
"a nonsuit is properly ordered upon
failure of the plaintiff in an action
against joint contractors to prove that
any of the defendants executed or rati-
fed the agreement declared on
AS registered in Honolulu the Hagey
Cure Co. consisted of T. E. Cowart, ].
H. kirkpatrick and Geo. d. Moore of
the state of Texas, A. E. Pewter of
Montreal, Canada, and j. A. Magoon,
F. b. McStocker, L. C. Ables and
Dorothea Lamb OF Honolulu. Four of
these partners signed an agreement in
New Zealand whereby the company
took in as new partners Alfred Ed
ward Gilmore and Thomas Miner Har-
rison, agreeing to give them 92250
(s11, 250) if. after a certain trial, they
were not satisfied wA.h the conditions
of the business. The three partners in
Honolulu did not sign or authorize the
signing of the agreement. Letters
We're received in Honolulu from one or
the partners in New Zealand mention
irg that they had sold one-half interest
in Tasmania for 5000 sheep and $500
($2500), that the sale of Tasmania was
for nine twentieths of the territory and
that one of the partners (not having
signed the agreement) was coming to
Honolulu and would put things to you
as they are About the same time
the partners here received an Is per
cent dividend on their stock, a small
portion of which appeared to have
been derived from the Tasmania sale,
as shown by the trial balance received
at the same time.
On these statements of fact the court
holds: ''That this was not evidence on
which the partners in Honolulu could
be held to have ratified tine agree
meat.''
Finally the court holds that the
agreement purporting TO be made be-
tween the Hagey Cure Co. and Gilmore
and Harrison, accepting the latter two
as partners in the company, lis an in
agreement for the purpose Of
forming the proposed partnership un-
less all the parties sign, there being an
implied term in the agreement that all
should sign in order that the signers
incur several liability. There being no
partnership formed in this case in
of the failure of four of
the parties to sign the agreement, no
partnership rights or duties were ere
ated by the complete agreement
PARTNERSHIP DEFINED.
Judge De Bolt is sustained by a
unanimous decision of the Supreme
Court in finding that partnership ex-
lsted between plaintiff and defendant
In the suit of Albert Barnes against
Charles r. Collins for accounting, etc
Chief Justice F'rear is author of the
opinion. W. A. Whiting and c. F.
Clemens for plaintiff; J. J. Dunno and
w. T. Rawlins for defendant
"a partnership exists the syllabus
shows, when two or more persons
agree to share, as co-owners or prin-
NV L. - 90