SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2414, 20 March 1915, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

DAMAGES FOR MISREPRESENTATION

INCOME TAX EVADED COMMENT FROM THE BENCH. "I do not think that the evidence established that the total of the defendant's profits during the whole period of twelve years divided by twelve would show that au average profit of anything like £1500 per annum had been made; but even if that were so, and, if during the last two years of that period his total profits 'did not exceed in the first of those two years £415, and in the other year £530, as shown by his income tax assessments, the defendant's statement that his net profits averaged £1500 a year was misleading and was intended to mislead." In these words His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards yesterday summed up a case in the Supreme Court, in which a claim had been made for damages for false representation. The case originally came before His Honour in December last, when Frank Charles Farrow, merchant, of Wellington (formerly warehouseman, of Dannevirke), proceeded against Louis Henry Hoare. merchant, of Wellington, to recover the sum of £2500 as damages. Mr. H. F. von Haast appeared for Farrow, while Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with nim Mr. V. B. Willis, appeared for Hoare. The action had to do with a boot in- ?® ut _, concern headquarters in Far]sh Street, and known pnder the style oi J. w, Hoare and Co. Negotiations between the parties had taken place ?m o ar £ ack as Ma - V > 1912 > and Ml April, V-W. I 1 arrow entered into the agreement to purchase the business. He alleged that it was on account of misrepresentations as to the profits and as to agencies held by Hoare, that he UJ arrow) was induced to purchase, and be therefore claimed £2500 damages al•vu ? ] lav0 eeu su ff cr ed by him. the defence was a complete denial of misrepresentation Farrow (it was said) had ascertained the value of tbe busial ! d , . maclß the purchase as the learnt ot his own investigations. v«+ j r^. e ™ d judgment, delivered t a 'l ! Hon °«r held that the representations made by Hoare were not ? j ? Is l eaclln K. but that they were intended to mislead. "In my oninTon » proceeded His Honour. "tL Evidence shows that the defendant, in reP re! sentmg to the plaintiff that he ' had rt aVera £ G J p / ofit of £150 ° a year riedon b? Pen ° r whicll he had'earj. ° U , SI "® SS > meant the plaintiff to understand that in each year durine that period, with such allowance as must be made for fluctuations in all businesses, his business had returned a £150n an ™ al Pr ° fit of approximately l„fi on ? y ear more and another less profit V 1 " T airly Steac, y -nS plaintiff to understand that the busi Sarlr«^ e r 1S a an average income of £1500 ner £« 5If lons , wm ra *de after the rIL tendant s controversy wifh tVi« t %£&„?£££ t? naid nff +i, rel>roSe ? tation that he had s&SSF&r'Sts\ returns for two vears Trie \ j which have passed into tL I books, of the plaintiff, contafn -Jo other P yer U V o ibL nC , ome ta * for years the defendant, to use the mildest language possible successfullv evaded payment £f mcomeTax though ] 10 now asks the Court to believe that he was making an averaee ter o 'to th T SOO PBr almum - His lettei to the Income Tax Commissioner shows under ins own signature that ho h« P WI j 4O V lO 9 omm - ssi <>ner that he had made a loss iu one of tbe / 0 subs equently paid income tax, as on an income of £415 I tl . ler ? fore > the plaintiff nas established his first cause of acwbfn'b 1, I go ,° dwill - the business wiuoh he has been induced to buy is valueless 8 . ™ ° pbion ' l uito In respect of his first cause of action the plaintiff (Farro.v) was awarded the sum of £1750 and' in respect ot a second cause of action (breach or contract) he was awarded £5. He was also given judgment for his costs or the action according to scale, and an extra allowance of £15 15s. m respect of each of two extra days occupied by tho trial. CALDWELL V. THE UNION COMPANY. The case of Lucinda Caldwell v. the Union Steam Ship Compcny was again mentioned in the Supreme Court yesterday morning when his Honour Mr. Justice Edwards delivered reserved judgment on a motion for a new trial. ■The plaintiff (a widow) had sued the defendant company for £2000 damages for the death of her husbai.d, who was killed on the company's slcamor Maitai through a cargo sling breaking. At the first trial the jury could not agree, and at the second trial in November last the answers to tho issues, submitted to the jury, gave the verdict to the defendant company. Tho motion for the new trial was on the ground that the verdict was against tho woight of evidence. His Honour granted a new trial and allowed the plaintiff 10 guineas costs of the motion, the 'other costs being reserved. At the hearing, Mr. A'. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. E. J. Fitzgibbon, appeared in support of the motion, whicli was opposed by Mr. P. Levi on behalf of the defendant company.