MAURICE MAYAHAS Vs. WMORLEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit to re-cover a sum aggregating Rs. 4,069 as the balance of the price of goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff sues two defendants, William Morley and Percy T. Andrews, who, he says, until January 1921 were carrying on business in partnership under the name and style of Morley and Andrews. While they were so carrying on business in partnership, he supplied, at the e October, or beginning of November 1920, the goods specified in the first bill annexed to the plaint, and on the 17 November 1920 the goods specified in the second bill annexed to the plaint. Subsequently more goods were sent to the defendants on inspection. That was in the month of December. In the mon January, 1921 the firm was dissolved and later some of the goods were returned. Ha accordingly made out against the defendants the third bill for the value of the goods retained.

(2.) The defence put forward by the defendant Morley, who is appearing in person, is a denial that he at any time had the goods or that he was even in partnership with his co-defendant and he submits that the claims are barred by limitation.

(3.) The defendant Andrews has challenged one of the items appearing in the first bill and denies liability for the amount of the third bill, on the ground that the partnership, which he admits, was dissolved in the mon January, 1921.