Lists (None yet)

Login to create lists

Tagged (None yet)

Add Tags

Comments (None yet)

Add New Comment

No corrections yet

i&AAV.'.'ASD CltlMiflAL COUKTS.

SXTPEEME COUKT.— IN EQUITY. ' ' Fudxt, JctT 23. ..,,:. .-.'? [Before the Full Court.! TiroiTirn ato Aitotkm t. Hobut xra Othem.

For thsnUiaUCiJ, Mess™. KaKcweu ana tena; rortno eerafJants, Uic Attonicr-GoHcral, Mr. Gwynne, auU Mr. TWi'was a bill filed for the purpose of eiUblishiajr the

CliUtn 01 the plSinillH 'U mu-umu» u: mo iiibcmb ui me defendant CbaWes itobin in the section known as Kent lotsa. The bill pwjs primnily thai the ticlemUut Charles ttobin may be dcu nrcd to \m a Irusteo to tlto l.laiulinj of two thirds of that section, and upon pay ment by them of £2,000 or »uuh other smn as may be now due, from the plaintiffs to tbe defendant Charles Boblo, in respect of tbe purchase-money piid for tbe nid land, ma; be decreed also to execute to them a con veyance of such, two-third parts. The other parts of the prayer of the bill are merely subsidiary to this, and would seem mbstantially to be such as the pUWfl* would be eutiUed to if they succeed in esta blishing their claim to the decree first prayed. The alle gations of tbe bill are in substance that the defendant tbiiles Robin, haiiBg in view certain land speculations, and, amonz others, I he acquisition of thia section, applied to the plaintiff Jamw Tl.oumc, who agtced to ji.in him in the parehase, anil procured for him an intro duction to its o vner. Colonel 11. Torrcus ; that the defen dant C. Ilobiit, on joint account of himself and Tlioumc, took the section on lease, with the rtehtof purchase, and that the arrangement between Thoume and the defendant C. Eobin was embodied In tbe agreement set forth in the bill. Tha statement of the bill, there fore, is that TUflU'xs and C. RjMnwsro the original parties, each entitled, according to their first agreement, to naif of the section. Tne bill then goes on to allege a pievio'is oiler to allow the plaintiff W. F. BlaschanI, and S. P. Le Hair siwca deceased, to participate squally in the speculation, should Lo Bair on his part be desirous ot doing so, upon the terms of their contributing equally to the purchase-money and expenses, and an acceptauco by the plaintiff ilianchard of such oiler; the communi cation of I ha proposed arrangement to Lo Bair, and its n jcetiau by him, by means of which rejection the plain till'i and the defendant C. ltobin became entitled to the section in equal third parts. The subsequent statements in tlu bill, though not immaterial, as toucecteJ with the evidence, do not affect the initial rights of the parties aiale^ed by the plaintiffj, excepting' that there is no allegation ol any act or offer on tlieir part in performance ol the duties imposed upon them under the leaie, upon the supposition that they ore the parties principally inte rested. The agreement made between the defendant C. Eobin -and tbe plaintiff James Thoume, immediately after tbe former hod obtained a lease of the section, was as fol 'London,Jo!jll,1851. 'A5r.ei-.nent made between Mr. James fhoame, oT Gueinsej, on the one pirt.-iml Charlts Eobiu, of Adelaide, South Australia, on the other part 'The said Charles Robin leased, with right of par* chase, a cection of land containing 131 acres, more or less, known in. Adelaide as Dr. Kent's section. 14 .Now, I the above mentioned Charles llobiu do hereby certify that the said lease, and alt interest in the above roi-ntioucd Section No. 255, prelimiuaty section, is the property uf the abov ? meutioucd Mr. J&mea Thoame, uf Guernsey, and that 1 hare no claim whatsoever on the ?aid land, the Wasa having been made out in mj name to afford me more facility in disposing of the laid laud tn account of ilr. J. Tb'oame.' 'Cdablbs Robi-t. . ' Witneu— W. F. Dlimclmd, merchant, Uind.m.' The terms of tho lease were for a period of 0J yean, . commencing Slay 25. 1851, with a riirht of purchase fcr ' £S.\M0 Curing the first 11 years, at the annual rentot iriuO, payable hall-yearly ic Loudoa, the defendant C. ' li -bin iwvenantin,' U expend £1,«OJ in permanent, im ' provenunu duriug tlie first 10 years of the term. Mr. ttaiewelf, wlu opened the proceedings, read the bill, of which th- ai;ovc is a brief abstract. Also the imiwrri tkerctu of the defendants, of. which W8 also .rive

ilr. Charles liobiu stated in his answer that be was in LhiAou'ui May, 1351, where he hadgjne to purchase . drapcty on the joint account of him< and Mr. Nicholas 1*. Le li-iir. Tint he ???as there introduced by Air. ltiwlanJ Hill to Colonel Torrens, of whom he agreed to jiurchase two towa aurea situate in Adelaide for £1,000. Tua: he shortly aftertforJs took the lease ef the section referred to above, but which seetion was at the time subjttl to litigation between the owner and Dr. Kent, tbe occupier. That at that time the plaintiffs and Mr. I1. Le Hair were octiug as mutual agents for each other. That shortly after hia arrival in London tbe plaintiff Tlioume informed him that he was authorized to dicw-fc a paper for Mr. Le Bair, and that the plain tiffs elected him ai such. Also, that they introduced him to many persons in the manufacturing districts and tlttwberc as a partner In the homo of La Hair A Co.. of South Australia. .That basing iuformed the plaintiff Thoums of his transactions with, Colouel Totreus, Tlioumi; remonstrated with him for trading oa his own account, u]K)ii which he proposed to grant the plaintiffs c ij'ial akarei -n the transactions. To this proposal Mr. Xibett, whii via a. Hie limp intiina ely connected with the p aintitJs in bu-ines*, riiseJ strong objectiom, but on hia rL|.ri-5-..un« to them the probable prufits and future value 01 titi: luuil, his offer was accepted on condition that Mr. U- liiir should share in the lease, and that if he dis:ip{Turrd of tbe* speculation, he (Mr. C. Bobin) b'wuI.1 'oJ-r Vm oniu of the transaction, and retain the o^tricts tuUrtly iu hu own hands. Subsequently to ViU the p!aiuiiff Thoum-3 drew on him a bill of mdusue fjr £1.0iX», which ha accepted, and p:iil ta Colonel Torrens as the purchase-meney lo-tlh-'turo Uhu acrts, upon i7hieh Colonel Torrens ti.eueu ihi dted.-, which were to be delivered to him 011 i.U poyuiz the bilL Colonel Torrens also executed tiu- Ii^c to hin alone ; but shortly be'ore leaving Ens; Ian.', the pbiutill Thoume represented to him ' that he ou/hr. to hare sometUn^ to Ehow that the said lease of 131 acres was not made to me for my own sole benefit ; anJ that as the said lease was glinted to me alone, the j LiuUus would lose all the benefit thereof in the event of rsy .ejth sccurimg previous to my reaching Australia, or iutlic crent of my wishing to retain the whole lease for my o.vn ailvanta.-c ; and 1 thereupon, feeling much iauVbU'd to tbe said plaintiff (James Thoame) for the partnership connection to which he had introduced me, oii-J feeing desirous to gratify his wishes fully, and to plve Ium cv^ry coufiJew.'e in tnjse'.f, said that 1 would j;hv him any memorandum he pleased as evidence of my not hivin? tcken the said lent on my own account solely, s...d I accordingly ttien wrote a memorandum at iht dictation of the ptaiutiff (James Tboume), and having the fullest cosUdcnce in the plain tilTsgtxxl failh, anit fur the reasons stated, I did not pay particular at teuti-:n to the wording thereof nsr did I take a copy, nor am 1 able to recollect the contents thereof.' . Tne ilo.-uttitut Uicu went on to state that he (Jlr. C. Eobin) arrived iu Adelaide in October, 1S51, when Mr. Le Uair iniu!ju._d him, to his great astonishment, that he had tikin his brother (5rfr. Jainej Bobin) into partnership, m\A th.it the plaintiff Thrums had no authority from him t - e::ocao a partner for the firm, in which Capacity Mr. Le Da r refused to recognise him ; that the plaintiffs ab.ut July II, 1851, wrote to Mr. Le Bair, informing hi'n of tb» arranzemeiiU referred to above respecting the leasr, aud, oa his applying to Mr. Le Bair for bis de rision, he called it a wad speculation, and absolutely declined, 011 bchalt of himself and th- plaintiff*, to have an.uhiujrto do with it, 'connected as it was with an endless lawsui ;' also, mat be would come to no decision resp. ctiBj? the purch.\se of the two town acres, in conse quence or which he (Mr. C. Bobin) subsequ utlj com. pleted the purchase on his own account by paving the

ami lur &i,i'uvr. xie aucmunu proceeueu 10 taKe tne necessary le*rul steps for securing a good title to ttw sec ticn, and arter much litigatiou, a comprombe was eflecied, b/ which it was agreed that he and Or. Kent should become j-^int parcbosers. He denied having in vited the pbiintiS Tiiourae to join him ic a speculation Tor the purchase of land, or that Mr. Thoame introduced him to Colouel Torrent for that purpose. He did not know whether the agreement set forth by the plaiutiffi was th j some as that he had signed in England. He did not ogrte to allow to tho plaintiff Dlanehard an equal shard in t'ta le-tse previous to' its being executed, nor did the plaintiff ltbr.cliard agree to any other terms than thrwc propos:d by Wm, as being contingent on the appruval of Mr. Le BJr; eutuiqueiitly, tbe plaiutiff liloncliard had no interest iir tee transaction. The document in question then proceeds to deny most of the oilier allegations contained in the bill. It also states that the purchase-in uey of the section was paid by D.\ Kent and the (Jeft-adant C. Bobin in equal parts, and the deed of conveyance dated, April 29, 18J4, was executed, without iho kuowlediro ur consent of the plain tiffi. That-lhis indentnre was made between himself on the first -art, Dr. Kant of the second part and the defendants H-nry Ayers and James Robin of the third part. That it appointed Messrs. Ayers and Eobin trustees to execute a conveyance of 13 acres 12 perches of the said section to Dr. Kent, 17 acres la perches to the said Charles ttobin, and the remaining portion of. the section to purchasers of allotments; the pro ceeds tn tie held in trust for the said Dr. Kent and Charles Eobin in equal shares. ..That in pursuance ef tli« conrtyanees had been executed to Dr. Kent and tlioueleudu.t Mr. C. llobin; and that largo portions of tl e ie«dus had been olio sold to various other persons for )- rgj »UTns of mouey. That the plaintiff, had no interest ina»y poition of the land, and that they did not till Kithut the last eight months assert any right thereunto ? ror had they ever paid or offered to pay any portion of the parehase-money, or any rent doe under the lease. Moreover, that tha plaintiffs or one of them acquiesced in the compromise made between him and Dr. Kent, and in his dealing with the land as his oirn. The aww.r of the defendant James Eobin to the bill way to the following effect :-That his brother Charles

aooin leu ior jingiana, in December, 1850, fur the two fold purpose of purchasing lands situate in tbe colo'.y and merchandise. That during his absence, he (Mr. James Kofaia) was admitted as a partner with Mr. Le Bjir, and continued to carry on business with him as inercrants till Mr. Le '.'air's death, April J-, 1S3-1 That Mn Le Bair had written to the plaintiff Thoume, previous to the departure of Mr. C. Bobin from the colony, requesting him to procure and send out to him a fit and proper person as his partner. That about the month of October, 1851, Mr. Le Bair received a le tcr from Mr. James Thjume. dated Guernsey, May 27, 185 1, strongly recommending ilr. C. Robin to him w a partner. Oa ku brother's return to Adelaide in the end of October, 1851, Mr. Le Bair refused to admit him as a partner, and 'absolutely disavowed the authority of the said James T.ioums to make the said arrangement.' Con temporai:eotuly with the letnrn of Mr. C. Bobin, Mr. Le Biir rcctiyul a letter from the plaintiff Tboume, in forming nun that a saburbaa section had be n pur chased of Colonel Torrens fo» the joint concern ot tbe firm of Thoume and Blamhard and the proposed firm of Le Bair & C. Robin. Thai Mr. Le Bair suutiquently repudiated the transaction in the name of him self and of his triend*. the Messrs. Thoume X Blauc.iard. Also,

ubk. ne anerwaras uisoa mm all interest in the s? ction, and ttut he commmiioitcd this by letter to the plaintirJV Btatrag therein as tollows :-' The isnd we are afraid will nave to be abandoned. Land speculations have now twtlve month back.' He believed al» that Mr. Le Bair would have repudiated the 8i-ecuUUon in the two town ajreshadnottheplainiiffrhoamedra^nuponMr.Charlcs Bobin vl bUl of ^change tn the punhaseVmoney. That this bHlwcs dishonoured by Ur.C.Uobln, and that he (Mr. James Itobm) and h* i»te partner refused to retire it, Ihough they had fonds in taeir hands at tha time bc loagiag to the plaintiffs, --n the ground that the convey ances would not be sufficient security for the amount TJiat the firm of Tboume 4 Blanchard, being then about to compromise with their creditors, did not retire the WU; but that it was ultimately paid, with all costs and expenses, by Mr. Charles Bobin. That in October 1353, the plaintiff, Mr. P. Blanehard, came to Adelaide ajyi remained here many mon ths ; but that, thou^ upon very intimate terms with him ami his hie partner, with whom be had frequent conversations r- spitting land specu'ations, he never asserted any claim to the section or the two town acres till after Mr. Le Bair's death. On the contrary, he asked Mr. C. Eobin on one occasion (in December, 1852) to give him an acre of the stclion, when he (Mr. C. llobin) came into r.os3cssion. The defendmts (Mr. Henry Ayers ani Mr. James Bobiu) further replied to the bill in their joint names to the following effect :— Ttiat they believed tha £ift 0 pur cbase-money 0! the section was paid in equal portions by Dr. K-mt aud Mr. C. Kobin. That the latter execute* the indenture dated April 29, 1S54, bat they did not know whether it was with or without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiffs. That they hod, in pursuance of that indenture, conveyed tha several portions of the land to Dr. Kent, Mr. Charles Bobin, and to various pur chasers, and had received considerable sums of money in respect to siles so eff-cteil. That they refused to render an account to the plaintiffs of the balance thereof re maining in their hands, as they were not aware of any right or interest possessed by them, nor had tha/ a.™ nori(H- till latflvthat such rizht and interest was claimed

by them. .Mr. Bokewell proct eded to state that replication had bf en made by the plaintiff}, and a vast amount of evi dence taken before the Master in Chambers. Tbe plain till* asked the Court to compel Mr. C. Bobin to execute a deed of trust on their behalf. It was shown that the lore was made to Mr C. Bobin, bat that on the same dsr be sisrned a declaration to-tha effect that he had no personal Interest In the lease, bat that it was made in hli namofor the purpose of facilitating tha sale of tha sec tion. He then sailed from England to Adelaide, and it

aiained Bcro till 1833, wh-m hs ngtin left for E island,' where the conveyance in fee simple w»s male to him by a deed ditted December, 1853. In 1851 the section was convoyed to Mr. U. Ayers and Mr. J. B)bin, la trust for Dr. Keat and Mr. C. Bobin, with authority to sell cer tain portions of the section in allotment*. Th » trustees so appointed admitted having executed many deeds, and had received contideratile stmw of mousy ai the pro ceeds. On July 12th, 1851, the plaiut'lfi wroto to Lo Bair 4 Co. a salcment of tho nature of tho trans actions, which was snfficient to take the case oat of the Statute of Frauds- and this letter would also show tbpt Mr. Blanohard had an interest in the trannae tion. This letter, and tho document signed in England by Mr.C. R »!»in. was all the written evidence the plain tiff) hid to rely upon with regard to the original trans action, but he contend- d that it was sufficient tocjta blish their claims when taken in connection with the evidence which had b«en given. It was said by the defendants that in tbe event or Mr. Le Bair not ap proving of the transaction, the whole was to revert to Mr. C. Kobin. But even supposing this to have been the case, it would be inadmissible, as being a violation of the 7th clause of the Statute of Frauds. It would be, in fact, an attempt to correct written documents by parole evidence. The learned gentleman cited the cases ef Leaian v. Whitby, 5 Kttjsell, p. Hi, and Dile v. Ha milton, 11 Jurist, 163 and 670, in order to show to what extent pamlo evidence was admissible to vary written evidence. He then proceeded to show that tho objection taken b/ tho defendants on the grou d of laches was untenable, by citini? the dates of the several transactions in which the plaintiff* were concerned. His answer to the objection, that Ur. C. Robin had not been taken into partnership with Mr. Le Bair, and therefore that the whole of the interest in tbe lease reverted lo him, was, that the arrangement making this the condi tions of the reversion was not in w.iting, and, con*; qtiently, thct it would come within the Statute of Frauds. If, however, tho parola evidence was to bo gone into, it would bo fjuud to greatly preponderate In

lavuur ui tue piiumin.i. Mr. Bakcwcll then read tho whole of the evidence given by tha plaintiffs. It is very voluminous. The Ib'dowinz is on abstracf, in which wo have endeavoured lo present all the rust; rial points in a condensed form. Mr. James Thoame (examined by Mr. Bakowell December 10, 1858)— In May, 1851, he was a partner in the firm of Thoume £ Ulancnard, and was also a partner in the business then carried on ia Adelaide by Mr. Le Bair. About that time he saw tho defendant Uharieg Bobin, who asked him to join him in a land speculation, and who showed him a map of that which he wished to purchas?. A negotiation followed between Mr. Charles Kobin, Mr. Blancbard, and witness, during which Mr. Eobin proposed that the latter should join him in 1 tas ing the toction then occupied by Dr. Kent, to which they agreed. Colonel Torrens afterwards called- on the plaintiffs for a reference, and was referred by them to Messrs. Masterman.and to Smith, Payne, & Smith, which being satisfactory the lease was effected. Tho terms made with Mr. 0. Robin were, that two-fourths of tho interest oa the land should be held by the plaintiff:)' one-fourth by Mr. C. Robio, and ouc-fourlh to be offered to Mr. Le Bair In the event of his refusal thd interest was to be divided into three parts, share ane share (alike. It was at first- arranged that the leas, should be mule oat in witness's name, but on the dc feudsnt Charles Bobin representing tho difficulties h« wo ild have to contend with in Adelaide, if aeitnir nmler power of attorney, in the cveut of a lawsuit, it was arranged that the lease should ? be made in his nam\ oa condition that he gave a written acknowledgment, signed before witnesses, that tbe land was taken 0:1 witness's account. Was pre«Ht whei the deed was signed. March 3, 1858— Examination resumed— After the eie cation of tha deed all the parties except Coluticl Torrens went to the office of the plaiutiflV, where Mr. C. Bobia wrote out the document dated July II, 1851 (acknowledging that the lease was effected for the special interest of Mr. James Thoume). Witness com municated the arrangements to Mr. Le Bair by letter, and at the same time informed Mr. C. Bobin that he hid recommended him as a partner to Mr. Le itair. It was no part of tho arrangement that the interest of the

piiiinuus iu Mie iauu snouiu cease 111 uic event 01 »u r. C. Kobin not being admitted as a partner. In December, lay, Mr. C. Robin was in Guernsey, and represented to witness that the section of land was of no value, at the same time he offered to pay a balance of £230, due to Thoame k Ulanchsrd, for which he requested a receipt in full of all demands, which witness refused to give him. It was then arranged to meet in London, in January, 185 », bat the defendant C. Robin did not keep the appointment, he having left fer Australia by the South ampton steamer, January 4 or 5. In August, 1&2, the inspectors of tbe estate of Thoume & Blanchard— Mr. John Borrow tad Mr. William Turqaand — prepared a list of witness's lands and interests in South Australia, wlifoh included Dr. Kent's section and shares in mining property. The present suit was instituted with tbe knowledge and consent of the inspectors, and on their account. CroM-eismincd— Had a power of attorney from tha inspectors to institute this suit on their behalf, in con junction with Sir. James Walsh. Had no porsona! interest in its result. The amount recovered would go to his cre ditors. Bought some of the debu of Thou ne & Blan chard, and paid them in full. The inspectors were (0 pay him from what came oat of the estate, and had power of attirney to do so. When he first saw Mr. C. Kobin ia 18.il in England he spoke 1 f other lands bf sides those forming the grounds of this action, and Bhowed him a list in which were the names of Wother spoon and ef Smith, Payne, 4 Smith. Accompanied himto Manchester and effected purchases ofd-y goods, oh ao coant of Thonme & Blanchard, La Bair, aud C. Hobiu. Some of the goods were paid for by drafts an Thoume and Blanchard, and some by Mr. C. Robin's draft upon Thoume * Blanchard. Thought ho signed N. P. Le Bair and Co. The bills drawn by him in the name of Le Hair and Co. amounted to £2,000 or £4,500. Was not aware that he ever drew bills in tbe name of Le Bair & Co., except for the goods purchased at Manchester. Cross-examination resumed, March i, 1338— Was not aware that Mr. C. Bobin ever endorsed or drew any bills upon the plaintiffs in the name or Le Biir & Co. for goods purchased in London. Would not swear that he did not. There were other transactions with Colouel Torrens besides the one he had referred to. Believed it related to two town seetions. It was not a purchase on a joiut account. Iu referring to it as suci in his letter of Jane 12, 1851, he meant that it was to be a joint account in the event ef Mr. C. Bobin being taken ss a partner by Mr. Le Bair. The terms were the same as were agreed to with regard to the section. Knew of no other letters having been received from Mr. Le Bair renudiatiiiff the

tramaettons, except that in which he stated that *? land speculation! have now ceased,' -£«., a-ad which was re ceived after the firm ofThonme & Ulancfori bad stopped piymciit in 1852. Nothing was to ba advanced by the firm in respect of tha Kent Town sectUn, but the town acres were to be piid for by drafts drawn by witness on Le Bair, and which were handed over to Colonel Torreni. Gave a list of tho property of the firm to the inspectors in August, 1452, that it might be laid before the cre ditors, a meeting of whom' took place in Suptember, 135J. The amount recovered in that action would go to the creditors as part of the assetB, the estate being about to be trouud up by inspection. Messrs, Turqiunl and Borrow were appointed inspectors by the creditors, with authority to collect the assets and pay the cteditors, and witness had executed a deed confirming that autho rity. It was agreed at a meeting of the creditors that Thoame & Blanchard should be allowed to resume business after paying 4s. in the pound, and should have a release after the payment of the assets, as far as they would go. They had advice of the dishonour of the bill for the town acres, which bill was returned to Kng Iond. Was applied t» for payment, but he did nothing in the matter beyond applying for it to be returned to Adelaide to bj paid thete. Never did anything to pro vide funds to protect Mr. Robin against the bill. Be-examinaliou by Mr. Bikewell— Had an interest in tha suit to this extent— that he represented thBcreditors, and had purchased some of the debts. Also in the event of their gaining the suit the inspectors would recom pense them for their tims; aad any surplus wouid hi paid over to them. The purchasa of drapery goals in England was effected on bchairof Thonme & Blanchnrd and Le Bair X C. B)bin, and was mode on account of the representations of Mr. Le Bair, who stated by letter that Mr. C. Robin was acquainted with the requirements of the colony in respect of such goods. The purchase of the Kent Town piopertj was not mixed np with any proposed partnership arrangement between the defen dant a Bobin and Mr. Le Bair. William Friend Bianckurd (examined April 23, 1858) —The defendant Charles Bobin called upon him at Lon

uon m uay, isD i, anu enquired tor air. inourne, stating that he wished to see him on important business, referred to in a letter he had brought from Mr. Le Bair. informed him that Mr. Thoame was gone to Guernsey, and advised him to go there to tec him, which he did. A few days after wards he returned from Gacrusey with Mr. Tuoume. Mr. Thonme and Mr. Bobin then went to Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield, and purchased goods for the Adelaide market, amounting to several thousand pounds, on account of Tboume & Robin, and of L) Bair and C. Robin, in equal shares. On their return to London Mr. C. Bobin produced a map of Adelaide and its suburbs, and proposed the purchase of Dr. Kent's section, then belonging to Colonel Torrens, as an excellent investment. A negotiation with Colonel Torrens ensued, which resulted in an arrangement that a lease of the section should be taken, In which Thoame and Blanchard were to have one-half interest and Le Bair and Bobin the other half; or, in the eveitfcf Mr. Mr.Le Balf not approving of the speculation, &at the oihT. thrto parties shcu!d possess equal shares. Mr. C. Bobin proposed that the dee J should be mado out in his name, te enab'e him to eugage with greater facility in any litigation which might be necessary, in order to obtain pn3.-cs8ion for Dr. Kent This being agreed to.

Air. u. Komn engageu to give a document, seaming me property to Mr. Thoame, for the joint interest of the plaintiff!, in the event of death. Alter the execution of the lease, Mr. C. Robin wrote the agreement referred to in an outer office of their counting-house, to which he (Mr. Blanchard) attached his signature as witness. Mr. Thoume was in the inner office' at the time, and who, after receiving the document from Mr. C. Bobin, put it away with his other papers. Met Mr. C. Bobin again at Melbourne, in July, 1852, who stated that, though they had been unfortunate in thtlr other speculations, the land would bo a fortune for them all. Came to Adelaide in October, 1852, and remained at Mr. C. Bobin's house, as a guest, till December, 1S52. The day alter his arrival went with Mr. C. Robin, and his brothers John and The ophilus, So see the section, when Mr, C. Kobin again said it would be a fortune for them alL Daring bis stay, he suggested to Mr. C. Bobin that tUe best way of dis posing of the land after they hnd obtained possession would be to divide it into allotments, and place it in Mr. Green'sjiacds ; in which proposal Mr. C. Robin acqui esced. Saw Mr. C. Bobin again in Melbourne in 1851, and asked him how the land affair was getting on. He said, 'That is no business of ycurs.' Replied, ' Your opinion must be very much changed since I was with

iuu in Aueiaiae, 10 wmen ne answertd, ' 1 nave no 'urther reply to make.' Mr. Charles Gill was present. Desired him to take notice of the conversation. Very ihortly afterwards, Mr. C. Bobin offered to pay a balance iue to the firm of Thoune ic Blanchird, on condition tlutwuntas would Rive htm a receipt in full of all demands, which he declined doing. Cross-examined by the Altornej-General— Had no cor respondence with Colonel Torrens on the subject of the lease or the purchase. There was no agreement in wilting thowing the arrangement made w,th regard to the leas* previous to its execution. Did not explain to Colonel Torrens the reason why the lease was made out in Mr. C. Robin's name, nor inform him that he was a trustee for the firm. The document signed by Mr. C. iiooin auer the execution of the lease truly represented the nature or the transaction. It was given to secure the property to Mr. Thoume or Thoume & Blauchard. in the tveut of accident to or death of Mr. C. Eobin. The offreement was not copied from anything else. The ivhl \ m*\ Blmi!ar circumstances a few days before HbenttLi^'!*18,11110* rpcoll««on of what occurred at trial time cl ,a W ' A tbou8allJ W™** was not to be nau in I S lP.nch consequence to them, and it was amount Wd no t ' *^te ^ had fuDdl do»We the and Habinui % a~ ^2*™°™* °,, lJ*5f aHCU Left Eugland April av !„ ,v were called together, toother in the folios J 'C th£cr^lt°7 wcre «'W £5,W0 what was the amount of t^Jlwnot lay wilhin of the Brm when hi uSi' %^ '»? liabilities accepted bills on account *% SooL.C^r S^ land, but he believed not to litetfi^rS1*1 valae. Some of them were paid Did noJkn il !hCu r dishonoared bills omounteVto £?££- ,W -h^ the South Australia In October, 1852, uuihad nSv -i -' the .colonies ever since waiting the^seUlemeSofitt affairs. First made a claim to a thare inih»-™ »

the subject Never asked Mr, C. Babin to !et Um havl an acre of the proparty in Kent To *n. Re-examination— By Mr. Bakewell— Did not under stand the Attorney-General'* question when he replied that the document dated July 11, ]B51, truly represented the nature of the transaction. At that time Thoume and Blanchird, and C. Robin k Le Bair were interested in it. If Ur. Le Bair declined it was to be divided in thirds. Charles Bobin by that document placed himself }ntlw power ol Tboume. There were other persons la England who were material and necessary, witnesses in that mlt, Tb-7 were Frauds £e Baa and Nicholas I#

B ««, of Jersey, »na the whole of hU family. Could not uy that instructlonj bad been given for their examina tion. * ? ??.-? y- ? ' ? ? ? ; Mr. Justice Roothliy— Wcro they to understand that the plaintiffs were acting by power of attorney ? Mr. Fenu— Yes; but it could net be produced. It op peiroi to him that tho YnateriaJ point at fstue arose oat uf .an omission in the declaration of truit siguatl by Mr. C. Robin, and dated London, July II, 1351. The plain tiffs admitted to some extent that this wa* the case. Mr. Justice Eoothby— They both say that it does not, and they soek. to explain it. Mr. t'onn asseuu-d, and proceeded to arguo that the Stituto of frauds permitted a declaration of trust to be corrected by sul-s quent letters, but that it could i:ot bo varied by parole evidence, and quoted some additional cases in support of this view, in reply to a remark by Mr. Justice Bootliby in reference to the name of Mr. Blanchard bting omitted in tho document signed in London by Mr. C. Robin, he suggested that it probably was on account of his having sufficient confidence that his partner Mr. Thoumo wou'.d not take any undue ad vantage of him on that account ; that Mr. Thoame did net disrate to Mr. C. Bobin the document was rendered certain by the evidence ot the phntiffs, who stated that he was not in the room at the time it waj written. - The Attoraey-General stated that this was an action to enforce a cl dm which was not evidenced by writing and which was therefore rendered void by the Statute' or frauds. There was no writUu evident* to show that the arrangemeut between the parties was such as the plaintiffs alleijed. They stood in this position: they must either rely upon the document signed by Mr. 07 Bobin in London, which they admittea did not truly represent the nature of the transaction, or if they sought to vary it by tie letter or July 12, they had not snedtho proper person', for that letter Bhowed that the devisees of tha late Mr. Le Bair should have been included. 'He took this to be an ineoatesfciblo principle hi law, that ir a person sat up an agreement, it must ba taken as a whole as it regards the parlies therein named. He.could not vary that agreement partly by writing aad partly br parole eTidence, as was attempted imuat case. It was only in cases where the defeuaaut alleged a variance that the plaintiff was at liberty to correct it by parolo evidence. But in this ca»6 the plaintiffs themselves admittc J that the a^reeaicns did not truly represent tho n&tuie of the transactions. The learned attorney then proceeded to com:nent upon the evidence, for tho plaintiff V for the purpose of showing that the allegations contained in the bill were not supported ; that they had never ad vanced a single farthing toward tne rent of purchase ot the section ; that they had never asserted their tight to an interest therein tUl after the death of Mr. Lo Bair; that when they had notice from Mr. C. Robin that it was probable the speculation would have to be be abandoned, they took no steps tor the relief of t. e' pet son who was relying upon them for support; and that they took no steps to meet the liabilities which, according to their own showttijr, they had iucutred. ?? The evidence of Mr. James Bobin was then read by the Master, of whieu the following is an abstract:— Mr. James ll-ibiu (examined by the Attorney General September 10, 1856)— Was a partner with Mr. Lo Bair from October, 1851 till his death in April, 1854. The firm received a leiter from Thoume 4 Blanchard, dated May 27, 1851, recommending Mr. C. Robiu as a partner to Mr. Lo Bair. Was present when Mr. Le Bair deciin&i to aukuovrledge him as a partner after his return from England. About that time auothec letter was recoived from the pluintlOs, dated June 13, 1651, stating that' two to«n acres bod been bought from Colonel Torrens for our joint conisern by Mr. Robin, who would

iriveau particulars.' ai mat time there was no such firm as N. P. Le Bair A C. Robin. Knew that Mr. C. Robin brought a private letter from Mr. Thoume to Mr. Le Bair. Either saw it'or heard it read. Was executor of Mr. Le Uair, and hod search*! for tbo letter, but could not find it. As well cb he could remember it stated that tho property above alluded to had been represented to be valuable, and' re erred it to* Mr. Lo Bair lo accept or reject it. Also that Mr. C. Robin had offered to take it entirely on his own hands. In consequence of this several interviews took place between Mr. Le Bair and Mr. C. Robiu at one of which witness was present, when Mr. Le Bair rejected the speculation, tnd said hs would not advance oae penny either for reut of the sec tion, law costs, or anything else. September 17, 1850. examination in chief resumed by Mr. Hicks— Was not certain whether ho road the letter addressed by the plaintiffs to Mr. Le Bair, or heard Mr. Lc Bair read it. It must either have uceu tafcea home by Mr. Le Bair or abstracted tromtheouvu. Mr. Le Bair was not accustomed to keep all the private Utters at his office. Mr. Le Bair lived with wituess two or three months before he went home, where witness hod searched for the letter bnt could not find it. Mr. Le Bair, in the first instance, repudiated the purchase of the two' town acres, as well 113 the lease ; but he afterwards informed witness that he thought he should have to meet the £1,'CO bill to save Mr. Tfaoume's credit. Be fore the bill became due ho weut lo Sydney, and, ou leavitij?, tuld wiiuess to take up the bill or leave it alone, as he thought fit. On hU return from Sydney hu again stated that he would not advance a penny in respect to the section; aud that, if tho bill hid b&n taken up, he would have sold this two acres at once for whatever they might have fetched. They ha! funds or goods at the time belonging to the plainiiu'd,inore than BuffL-ient to meet the biJ ; but the two acres were nut worth the money, and they had, also, instructions to invest other wise to a much greater amount. Mr. Charles Kobin took up the bill. Mcnars. Tuoume & Blanchard were not in a position to do so. Supposed at the time that if he had taken up tha bill, they (La Uair & J. Jtobin) would have shared, . in the putubose with ilr. Tuoume and Mr. Le Bair, the other parties inte rested. Was not aware till Mr. Lo Bair returned from Sydney that he had given up the section from the lint, and that his only anxiety was Mr. Tbouine's hononr with, rispect to the bill. Mr. Le Bair approved entirely of his not r. tiring the bill. Kvmtmbered Mr. Ulancnurd's arrival in October, 1852. He was hero eosn-i mouths. S ivr him oiteu wi;h Mr. C. Robin during that time, but he never claimed any interest in the section or the two acres either for himself or his partner. Fir.t heard of his claim af.tr Mr. Le Bair's death. Heard Mr. Blan chard, iu December, 1853, ask Mr. C. Room for an acre of land on Dr. Kent's section, in th« event of his gaining the lawsuit with Dr. Kent. Believed Mr. U.auouartl was in Adelaide when the section was advertised for sale by Mr. Green, in April, 1854 (Adjourned.) . Examination ia chiefresainea — On hearing his previous, examination read, found that he had stated that when the bill for £1,000 became due they had goods or funds belonging to the plaintiffs sufficient, to meet it. He now wished to acid that they had no luncU of the plaintiffs in band at that thr.e, and that they could not realize ou the goods without great sacrifice. Tne goods purchased by Charles ltobiu in England, on the joint account uf Thouin? 4 Bouchard and N. P. Lcltatr,& Co., were paid tor partly by bills to the amount of J3i,»X-, drawn by Charles liobiu upou Le Bair & Co., in favour uf tae ploimiuV and eudorccd by them, the cue to the

untou nans 01 Australia, aim me oiuer 10 tne baiifc of South Ans'.ntlia. The residue was paid for by tha bills drawn for N. 1*. Lc Uair & Co. by C. Kobin ou t ho plaiii titls and accepted by them. Tbey were dishonoured to the amount, of £2,U00 aud upwards, and were U&en up by Le Uair k Robiu. On March 1, 1853. made out the account current of Thoume & Blauchard with Le Bair aud Robin, 1 ud sent it to Mr. Ls Bair to hand it over to the plaintiffs or their insptctors.' It allowed that they owed Le Bair & Robin, jLUjO 13s. 4d. Cross-examined by Mr. UokewtU — It was possible that at that time thty had merchandise in hand belonging to the plaintiffs. The dishonoured bills were paid out of tho funds of Ls Bair k Itobin, and debited to the accoam o! goods per Benjamin tlkin. They were ultimately reimbursej by the sale of those goods. Le BairJt Charles Itobin were interested in the drapery g-.ods per Benja min Elkiu to tbe extent of one-l.air, aud the plaintiffs tho other half. Joined Mr. Le Bair as his i.aruier in Octo ber, 1851. Mr. Le Biir was ait then tbe partner of Tiiourae & Blanchard. Believed there was a partnership between Le Uair £ Thoame; bnt Le Bair always repu diated Ilianchard as his partner. On referring to tbe copy of the letter produced, dated February 6, Ia5i, had reason to believe that there ivai no partnership between the plaimiffe and Lo Biir. When ho joined Mr. Le Bair, he wostoluve a fourth interest till the books were balanced, which was about nine months after words. Mr. Le Uair had the other three-fourths, Ilr. Tboume had no interest in the profits. Was not am- re of having ever stated that Lo Itair & Robiu were in partnershin with tbe plaintiffs. ' (Adjourned.) Kxamina:ion resumed b/ Mr. liakewell, April 30, 1957— Could not assign the reason why Mr. Lc Uair re fused to acknowledge Mr.C. Robin as a partner, lie was excited at tbe time. He reject* 1 the speculation in the land at tho first meeting after Mr. C. Robin's return to' the colony. Mr. Manville and Mr. Watwbard came to the colony in September, 1354, by the same vessel. Heerd from Mr. C. Robin, on his arrival, that Manville bad instructions to claim from him an interest in Kent Town or something of tho kind. Mr. Monvillvi was Air. Thoume's ageut. Hod heard that Mr. Thoume was doing him (witness) the favour to send out Manville, his discarded clerk, as a partner. ' - . Re-examined by the Attorney-General -Nothing was done by Mr. Le Bair, or by Le Uair i.' Robin, either oa their own account or on behalf ot the plaintiffs,- m refer ence cither to the purchase of the two town acres or the lease of Kent Town. .Previous to the arrival of Mr. Manville, in September, 1834, neither Mr. Thoume nor Thonme k B!an;hard roads any claim to the Kent Town property, except in a private leiter previously referred to. : The Coart adjourned to tha following Tuesday morn ing, at 10 o'clock.

Zoom

plus
thumb
minus
left
thumb
right
up
thumb
down