Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Starn v. Hanley, 1874

[breach of contract]

Starn v. Hanley


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. )
Starn v. Hanley.-Claim for £25, on account of breach of contract.
Mr. Smith for the plaintiff, and Mr. Rudall for the defendant.
David Starn, the plaintiff said he entered into a written agreement with the defendant to go into partnership with him as bakers, but he broke the agreement and left him on the 12th June, saying that he would join with the other baker, which caused witness to shut up, as he did not understand the business himself. There were two tons of flour then on hand, which had to be sold, and the business was ruined. It was well worth £30. Witness was then thrown out of employment, which was a loss of about £3 per week.
By Mr. Rudall-The £3 per week each would depend upon whether the business was properly managed. It was not well managed, because defendant made the bread bad sometimes. Some bread was bad because of bad flour, which witness bought at Solomon's. But bread was also bad at other times. Defendant received £18 9s. 51!. whilst the business continued. Had no conversation with defendant about leaving before the time he left. The capital they started with was £65 18s. 10d. in cash and stock. When Hanley left there was flour on hand not paid for, and witness sold this flour for about £40. Defendant broke the agreement at the end of four months instead of continuing for six months.
William Hanley, the defendant, admitted the agreement, and said that he left plaintiff because he could only get £16 5s. from him during the four months they were in partnership. Told plaintiff that he should be obliged to leave or work for wages, as the money which he received was not sufficient. The reason the bread was sometimes bad was because the flour was bad. Offered plaintiff £1 or £1 10s. for the business and half the stock, or offered to work for wages.
The Court gave a verdict for plaintiff, damages 1s.

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