JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - Rule No. 3207. I think this rule must be made absolute. At the date of the institution of the suit, the Plaintiff treated the present Petitioner as his partner, and his suit was to recover from Defendant No. 1 the price of certain jewellery which he said the Defendant No. 1 had purchased from him. He subsequently heard that his partner had received this money but had not accounted for it in the partnership books. He then amended his plaint and asked that his partner, the present Petitioner, should be held liable for the sum. We do not see how he can be held liable in the present suit, which is not one to wind up the partnership. One partner cannot sue another in this wise. If one partner thinks that his co-partner has not been treating him properly, his proper remedy is to apply for the dissolution of the partnership and to have its accounts taken. If it be then found that one partner has cheated the other, the Court can deal with that. It is sufficient for the purposes of this rule to say that the Plaintiff and the present Petitioner being partners, the Plaintiff cannot sue him for the sum now claimed in a suit constituted as is the present. The rule is, therefore, made absolute with costs, hearing fee, two gold mohurs. 2. This judgment, it is conceded, will govern the other Rule (No. 3208) which is accordingly made absolute with costs, hearing fee, two gold mohurs. Caspersz, J. I agree.