LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2589, 11 October 1915, Page 9

LAW REPORTS

ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION, DISPUTE OVER A MOTOR LORRY SALE Judgment was delivered ill the Supreme Court oil Saturday morniug fcy His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman in. the action brought by Ernest Henry Spacknian against George William Woods and John Edward Fitzgerald. The plaintiff, a carrier, purchased a inotor-lorry from the defendant Woods for £650, and the defendant Fitzgerald was the agent for Woods in selling the property. The action was to set aside the contract on the ground that it was induced by certain false and fmidulent representations made by Fitzgerald in conducting tho sale.

In the course of his judgment His Honour said that had the action been one involving a. decision as to the actual power of the engine, he should have had to discuss a good deal of very interesting technical evidence given by several witnesses. He had not done so, as that would have been beside the real issue, which was whether a charge of fraud had been made out. He found that it was not made out, and ill justice to the defendant Fitzgerald ho must add that it liad wholly failed. Judgment would bo given for the defendants, with costs as per scale to each defendant as if £250 wore in dispute. He further allowed each defendant a second day at £10 10s. and disbursements. Witnesses' expenses and qualifying expenses were also allowed.

Mr. W. Perry represented the, plaintiff, Mr. T. Neave appeared for tjj© defendant Woods, and Mr. A. W. Blair for the defendant Fitzgerald. A CASE FOR EXPERTS. SPECIAL JURY GRANTED. In an action brought by William Bennett, a freezing works employee, for £1000 damages against the Hawke's Bay Farmers' Meat Company, a special jury was applied for on September 24 by Mr. E. F. Hadfield, on behalf of the defendants, on the ground that expert knowledge v.'as required. Mr. P. J. O'Regan opposed,the application on behalf of the plaintiff. In giving judgment in the Supreme Court on Saturday, His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman said that, having considered all the circumstances; he had ccme to, tho conclusion that the defendant had made out grounds showing that expert knowledge was required, and that no sufficient grounds existed for exercising his discretion by refusing to grant a special jury, -which, would bo ordered accordingly.