COURT OF APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2346, 31 December 1914, Page 9

COURT OF APPEAL

A DEAL IN STAMPS The Court of Appeal sat yesterday to 'deliver reserved judgment in the case of the. Stanley/ Stamp Company "'v. ' Brodio. ; .The Bench was occupied at ihe hearing of argument by Their Honours the Chief ' 'Justice (Sir Robert Btout), Mr. Justice Edwardsj and Mr. Justico Sim. In tho original action, heard in March last, -the statement of olaim set out ■ that Charles Henry Osmond, of "Wellington, 'sheep-farmer, and Alfred. James " ' 6tone-"Wigg, of Opaki, near Masterton, . sheep-farmer, were partners in the'Stan-" ley Stamp Company. Alexander Brodie, it was alleged; had been induced ■ to purchase the business by means-of false representations. The , plaintiff (Brodio) asked the Court to rescind the agreement to purchase, and order the return of two deposits—£lo7 and £10C0 —together with.the sum of • £150; • i : In the alternative, if the plain- ... tilf could : not. have rescission, of theagreement, he prayed that; he hie granted the sum of £1500 dafaagesi The defence .filed denied misrepresentation, and stated that all stocks of the Stan-' ley Stamp* Company and, its : books'were ' handed to the plaintiff for his inspection, and he had declared himself satis- - ficd' before entering into the agreement. His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking, who • heard the case, directed that an inquiry be held before the Registrar to ascertain by what sum the book and other ■ debts fell' short of £817 Bs. 4d : (the i amount of the book debts as represented to-plaintiff), v and that the defendants (Stanley Stamp Company) " pay,: • within fourteen days frbm the dato of the Registrar's certificate, such sum as : was certified by way of damages. Judgment. was for; plaintiff (Brodie) withcosts according to scale upon _the sum certified, disbursements, 15 guineas for ; ?, ono extra <lay, 8 guineas a day for extra counsel for two days, and the cost's of - all interlocutory proceedings. ■ Against this decision the defendants appealed on the it was erroneous iii law and'in .'fact. _ "A. crossappeal; was entered by Brodie, on the ground tliat be was' entitled to rescisr sion and to consequential relief._ ■ - _ At the.hearing, Mr.. M.\ Myers, with Mr. V. R. Meredith, appeared for tho appellants, while Mr., C. B. Morison, . K.C., with him Mr. 6. Samuel, appeared for the respondent (Brodie). The Court held that the plaintiff '(Brodie) was entitled to rescission of the contract, with the necessary, consequential relief. The appeal of.the defehdants (the Stanley Stamp Company) , was and the appeal of the plaintiff (Brodie) allowed, the defend- ' . ants to repay to him the two sums of £107 and £1000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from the •■ respective dates of the payment of the Bamo up to the "day of entering judgment: Subject to. these conditions; the- ; ... decree'.should be settled in the Court i ,below, 'arid ' should, embody/. the direc- ' tions necessary to place the parties as V'" nearly as possible in their respective ; positions prior to the execution.of the contract. The plaintiff (Brodie) should have ,his costs of the appeal on the ■ highest scale. Mr. Justice Sim dissented. • . : NO. COSTS IN LOWER COURT. •, His Honour tho Chief Justice (Sir " Robert Stout) announced that the; . . Court of Appeal had. considered the > question, as to - whether costs' in vthe .Court below should be allowed in the " case of the Onehunga. Sa'wmilling Co., •Ltd.,- v. the Offioial Assignee, m which a variation of tho ; original judgment had been ordered. ■ .• ~ The Court, was of opinion that 'such "; ■ costs-should not be allowed. -