LAW REPORTS,

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1462, 10 June 1912, Page 7

LAW REPORTS,

SILVERSTREAM LAND CASE. NO RIGHT TO RELIEF. NON-DISCLOSURE, NOT FRAUD. Allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation wero held not to bo proved in the reserved decision delivered in the Silverstream land case, which was heard in tho Supreme Court in Wellington in February last. Mr. Justice Sim, who heard the case, is still absent frqm Wei■lington, tho judgment was lodged with tho Registrar. The plaintiffs in the action were Frederick llcury Pitcher, builder, Mary Ann Pitcher, Minetto VFardrop Anderson, widow, and A. Gray, solicitor, all of Wellington. Tho defendants wero: William Charles Alfred Dimock, baeon-ctiicr, of Wellington, Alexander James M'Tavish, and William Edwin Redstone, carrying on business as laud agents in Wellington, under the style of A. J. M'Tavish and Co.

At the hearing, Mr. C. B. Morison appeared for flic plaintiffs, while Sir John Findlay, K. 0., with Mr. F. E. Ward, appeared for the defendants.

From the facts adduced at the hearing, it appeared that the Silveratream Land Syndicate had been formed in or about May, 1903, its objects being, tho purchase, for i'sooo, of a.'property in the Upper Hutt district, and the resale thereof at. a profit. The nine original members of the syndicate were: Messrs. Pitcher, Gray (two of the plaintiff's), Dimock, M'Tavish, Redstone (the three defendants), J. Anderson, W. T. Strand, George Luke, and Thomas Cooper. Subsequent''to tho formation of the syndicate, tho purclnso of the property was arranged through 'the agency of A. J. M'Tavish and Co. The property- had originally been purchased by Dimock (ono of the defendants) in December, 11)01, for .£3500, M'Tavish and Redstone (the other defendants) boing interested in this purchase to tho extent of one-fourth share, and W. T. Strand being interested to the same extent. The property was transferred by the registered proprietor (ono 'Chapman) at. the direction of Dimock (one of the defendants) to Redstone (another defendant), and John Anderson, who wero trustees for tho syndicate. Of tho purchase money of i:5000, only .£ISOO was paid in cash. The balance was secured by a mortgage over the property from Anderson and Redstone to Dimock.

The' plaintiffs (Pitcher and others) alleged that Pitcher, Anderson,, and- Gray wero induced to join the syndicate by falseami fraudulent representations and fraudulent concealments on the. part of Redstone (one of the defendants).' The alleged misrepresentation consisted in representing that M'Tavish andX'o. wero interested, with other members of the proposed syndicate, as intending purchnssrs and concealing the fact that M'Tavish and Co. were interested in the property as vendors. Plaintiffs therefore sought to have:

The partnership agreement rescinded; An account taken of the partnership tran-

sactions; A receiver appointed by the Court to wind -up tlie affairs of the partnership; Tho defendants severally and jointly to indemnify plaintiffs against all claims with respect to the partnership; .All sums contributed by tho plaintiffs to the partnership refunded, with li per •cent, interest added—plaintiffs to givo credit for all sums received from the partnership—or, alternatively, plaintiffs to recover *S">00 each as damages for loss claimed to have been sustained by them in respect of the alleged deceit and misrepresentations of tho defendants; Defendant's restrained from dealing with

the assets of,the partnership. It' was admitted that Mr. Gray was not told of tho existence of this interest, but it was claimed that both Pitcher and Anderson had been told by Eedstane, before tbo purchase by the syndicate, that M'Tavish and Co. wero' interested in the

property. *' ; '' ; ; ' '. r !!: '-' :l -■■■ ;''";" His Honour, in giving judgment, said that if, in such circumstances, tl.wo was a duty to speak, it could only be discharged by making a.full disclosure and telling all the material facts. Tho evidence, in' his Honour's opinion, did not establish that this was done, and the case would therefore have to be treated as cne in which there was no full disclosure to Pitcher, Anderson, or Gray. "I think that tho non-disclosure was not due to any fraudulent design on the part of Redstone," said his Honour. "He did not do or say anything to actively misrepresent the "position. All that was said was true so far as it went. What ho said was that M'Tavish and Co. were taking a share in the syndicate. It is only, if noh-disclosure can be treated as involving misrepresentation that misrepresentation can be charged against him. He did not make any disclosure on tho subject of M'Tavish and Co.'s interest, because, apparently, it .did not occur to him that tlicro was any duly on his part to make such disclosure. If existence of that interest, had been disclosed, I am not satisfied that such disclosure would have deterred anyone of those who joined tho syndicate from doing so." . • • Continuing, his Honour held that if tho statements made by Bedstone to those whom he invited to join the syndicatecould Ire treated as a representation that M'Tavish arid Co. were interested m the property only as prospective purchasers, ft was necessary for the plaintiffs (Pitcher and others), Wore they were entitled to any relief, to prove- that Pitcher, Anderson, and Grav acted on the faith of this representation and that it operated to induce them to join the syndicate. Jns Honour did not think that the representation operated in this manner ilio question of who tho vendors really were did not in tho least interest these invited to join the syndicate. They wero invited to join for the purpose of purchasing, for £3000, a property which it was said could be resold at a profit, fco complaint was made alwut tho price, and the property was resold at a price which wonld, .nave yielded a considerable profit to -the syndicate On this ground, therefore, apart from any other question, tho action must His Honour's conclusion was that plaintiffs had not established any right to relief, and judgment was accordingly given fm defendants, with costs according to calo t ; on a claim for 4:2000, with ds-bui--eiiienls and witnesses' expenses to bo fixed by tho Registrar.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

(Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) SOLID CHARGE LIST. ' PREFERRED AGAINST GEORGE ALLEN. MAN WHO DISAPPEARED. At tho Magistrate's Court, on Saturday George Allen, alias Richardson, was charged as follows—With having, at Wellington, on June 7, 1912, forced the name ot G D. DoiUou to a cheque ior .to Jus. Gd., and uttered the same to Charles George Rliimes; at Featherston, on April 6, 1012, forged the name of Alexander M'Lcod to a cheque for JCIO las.; nt Jlasterton, on April 10, 1!)12, forged the name of Alexander M'l.cod tu a cheque tor Jill; at Wauganui, on May 2r, 191-, forged the mime of \V. F. M'lieth to a cheque for .£l2 10s. ,-«,-,■ -i Alien wan also charged with having tailed tu appear at the Supreme Court, W ellincton, on May C, to plead to an indictment of forgery. Sub-Inspector Siicehan asked for ft lfcmaud for a week. He said tha , probably, a further remand till .Mine 1!> would then be asked for. The remand was granted.

"IDLE" FELLOWS. Thomas Carmodv and Charles Jones were charged with beinc idle and disorderly persons. BoMi pleaded nut guilty. Detective-Sergeant Castles anil Constable Doyle deposed that they had .■•"en the defendants in the company of reputed U 'cV.nndy and Jones slated thnf il.ey were willing to leave the city, and get n work. Thev said that they had only been in Wellington a week. Jones declared that he had just, enmc down from Ikbush; he was a hard-working man who did nobodv but himself any harm. His Worship said that he v:>? inclined to give tho defendants a chance, 110 convicted them, and ordered them to ap.

penr for sentence when called on. He added that if they did not leave town that day they would be re-nrrested and brought forward to be sentenced. Mr. I!. H. Webb appeared for Carmody. CECILIA FORD. Cecilia Ford, who appeared for sentence on n charge of having been found, without lawful excuse, by night on the Trocadcro Hotel prinniM'S, was remanded till to-duv to allow of unriuiries being made into 'Ilie value of statements miule by tho defendant, to the effect that sho has work lo go to. GOLD WATCH. Victor Laney was accused of having obtained a gold watch, valued at ,t;3(i, iron) Brown Brothers, Nelson, on June .'l, by means of false pretences. He was remanded to appear at the Nelson Court to-morrow. OTHER CASES. . For insobriety, William Neerin was lined 10s. William M'Donald was fined £3 for having committed a certain act. I MOUNT COOK POLICE COURT. At the Mount Cook Police Court, on Friday, Mr. T. Bland, J.P., presiding, one first offender was connoted and discharged for drunkenness. For tlie samo oit'ehce, Arthur Daniel Mahoney was convicted and discharged, and Harry Irwin ■was fined 10s., with the alternative of 'J8 hours' imprisonment. On Saturday, before Mr. J. M. Goddess, J.P., John Ernest Bull, charged with drunkenness, was convicted and discharged. . One first offender was lined 55., in default 24 hours' imprisonment, and another, on bail, who did not appear, was fined 10s. 6