The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 20 of the Limitation Act to determine the acknowledgment of debt and the effect on the claims based on the bills.

JUDGMENT

Buckland, J. - 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 end of October or beginning of November 1920, the goods specified in the first bill annexed to the plaint, and on the 17th 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 month of 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 month of January 1921.

4. The points that arise for decision therefore fall under three different heads, first as to the orders and details of the bills secondly, whether there was any partner-ship so as to make the defendant Morley liable; and lastly, the question of limitation.

5. With regard to the details of the bills, the vouchers have been proved, and there is no doubt in my mind that the details given are correct and that the goods were ordered by Andrews and were supplied.

6. With regard to the items specified in the third bill; I find that the goods, were sent on inspection during the time that the partnership, if there was a partnership, was subsisting. The fact of the subsequent dissolution of such alleged partnership cannot have the effect of absolving the members of the firm, at the time when the goods were sent, from liability, though the cause of action may not have accrued until the return of the goods which were not required. I therefore find as regards the third bill that the defendant Andrews is liable, and also Morley, assuming he was a member of the firm.

7. With regard to the question of partnership, I do not think there can be any question upon the evidence that Morley was a partner. Hi; case is that he was engaged in business elsewhere, and the arrangement between him and Andrews was that he was to devote such time as he could spare from his other business for the purpose of doing work in this tailoring business, which was carried on under the name of Morley and Andrews, and for that purpose he was to at end in the morning and evening. He says he was to have a half-share in the net profits and denies that he was in any way liable for the losses. The plaintiff appears to have regarded him as a partner, though there is no substantive evidence to the effect that he was a partner given by the assistants who have given evidence. But there is the statement of the defendant Andrews, and it was admitted by Morley himself not only that the business was carried on in the name of Morley and Andrews, but that there was a banking account in such name upon which he was entitled to draw cheques. He has also admitted that he signed a lease of the business premises, though he says that he did so as a surety. His explanation as to the use of his name is that without his name no tailoring business would have been done.

8. I find that at the time with which I am concerned the defendant Morley was in partnership with Andrews, and as such may be liable to the plaintiff.

9. I now come to the question of limitation. I will dismiss at once any question of there being a continuous account, such as was before