Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Laurie v. Lindsay, 1874

[balance of account]

Laurie v. Lindsay

Local Court, Palmerston
Price SM, 5 August 1874
Source: Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 8 August 1874, p 3

LAW COURTS.
LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.


WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5.
(Before Mr. Price, S.M., Hon. Thos. Reynolds, and Mr. Gardiner, J.P.'s.)
Lawrie v. Lindsay.--Claim for £31 13s. on balance of account.
Mr. Smith for plaintiff, and Mr. Rudall for the defendant.
J. H. Lawrie, the plaintiff, stated that in August, 1873, he made a verbal agreement with the defendant. Agreed to proceed to Northern Territory from Sandhurst, and report as to prospecting for gold. Came here with his brother, after buying various things in Melbourne for the purposes of the expedition. The expenses commenced when they started from Bendigo; and when they arrived here various expenses were incurred, including thirty or forty pounds worth of goods. Was prospecting here for a period of four months; and the cost of telegrams was about £20. Had lost his book of accounts; but the paper produced contained all the particulars, but could not swear when it was made up. The items were copied from the book, and were afterwards compared with the book. The copy was made previously to the last case between witness and defendant. The balance shown in the account was the amount which remained unpaid from the defendant to the partnership account. This evidence was in some respects confirmed by plaintiff's brother and another witness.
The defendant, Robert Lindsay, said there was no agreement or partnership. He was going to remit to plaintiff whilst in the Northern Territory, but did not do so because the Company which was talked of had not been formed. Did not know that plaintiff had a claim against witness until after witness sent a demand for money which had been lent to plaintiff. Plaintiff never made any claim, or sent in any account. Had forwarded him money; but only as a loan. Did not tell him it was a loan.
By Mr. Smith-The money advanced to plaintiff was a loan. Did not agree to send him money for expenses. The telegrams produced related to a Company which was to be formed if convenient. Was never asked to be a partner in a prospecting scheme. When plaintiff came back to Victoria he never demanded anything for expenses. He showed a receipt for a miner's right, and witness received it from him. Did not pay anything for the miner's right. No Company was formed in 1872. But there was a Company formed in Adelaide in 1873.
By the Court-Had demanded repayment of the loans advanced to plaintiff. Plaintiff agreed to go to the Northern Territory at his own expense, and on his own responsibilities. Had befriended plaintiff's brother, and that was the reason why plaintiff offered to enter upon this matter.
Plaintiff's brother said that defendant had merely obtained a situation for him on one occasion.
Mr. Rudall addressed the Court to show that there was no agreement or partnership, which was replied to at considerable length by Mr. Smith.
Verdict for the plaintiff, £28 2s. 8d.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School