'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎173r] (356/1904)

•.£5
conclude the contract without consulting his
par tners, it is difficult to understand his attempts
to i..on^eai it from thena, and to deceive them as
to its terms.
^ ih.) 1 'he German Government also contend that
ail the partners expressly approved the agreement.
P. 16. The persons concerned (omitting Abdullah,
* ho may be assumed to have supported his
rather) are Esa, Malcolm, and JSTejef, son of
Nakhoda Ali.
T3ae German Government dispute that Nejef
was a partner, arguing that Kakhoda Ali "had
a share on the strength of his engaging to super
intend the work at the mines, without putting
capital into the concern," that his partnership
was connected with personal services, and there
fore ceased at his death. This contention is not
supported by the terms of .the document under
which he became a partner (Annex 2 to
First German Memorandum), which placed him
in precisely the same position as the other-
partners. Moreover, as it is pointed out on p. 18
of the Second German Memorandum that the
only partners who put any capital into the
concern were Hassan and Malcolm, it follows, if
the contention of the German Government is
correct, that the other partners, who neither put-
capital into the concern nor superintended the
work at the mines, had no claim to their shares
at all. The suggestion that Nakhoda Ali was not
p. 17. a partner, but,only an "employ^ of the company
with,a share in the profits," is plainly untenable,
in view of the provision in the document under
which he became a partner (Annex 2 to First
German Memorandum) that he was to bear
his share of the expenses—an unheard-of pro
vision m the pase of an employe. It appears
from Malcolm's statement (Appendix 17) that
Nakhoda Ali was originally the most important
member of the firm; and reference may also be
made to the sentence quoted above from Hassan's
letter to Nejef, dated the 21st January, 1908.
pp. 17, 50. The suggestion made by Abdul Latif, that it '
might be possible to extinguish Nakhoda Ali's
snare at his death on the grounds indicated
must have come to nothing, judging bv the
later documents as if the surviving partners had
thought it possible to get rid of the share in such
a way, they would certainly have done so
[926] ' ' H