LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2747, 15 April 1916, Page 14

LAW REPORTS

SUPREME COURT

CASE BEFORE A FULL BENCH

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court was occupied throughout yesterday ill hearing a motion for a new trial in tho case of'Keir and Munro v. Aitken and' Wilson. .

His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards presided, and associated with him were Their Honours Mr. Justice Cooper, Mr. Justice Sim, and Mr. Justice Hosking. Tho action—a claim for damages— was heard in Pulinerston North in Decomber last , before Mr. Justice Edwards and a special jury of twelve. Tho plaintiffs were John Keir and Ferguson Munro, while -the defendants were John Guthrie Wood Aitken and Georgo Wilson. The action arose out of tho sale by the defendants to tho plaintiffs of the formers' business as general merchants. The statement of claim set out that by ,an agreement, dated July 6, 1914, defendants sold to plaintiffs all the assets, property, and undertaking of their business, including certain leasehold premises, stock-in-trade, goodwill, and interest in connection with the business (but excluding bad debts), as at June 30, 1914. It was alleged'that in the.course of negotiations prior to the- execution of the agreement, the defendants . repeatedly stated to the plaintiffs that the agencies they held were exceedingly profitable and valuable, and that for some time after the execution of the agreement they still held such agencies as part of. their business. ' The agencies in respeot of which _tke representations were alleged, .to have been made were Fry and Sons,-the New Zealand Wax Vesta Company, and the Sykes Drencli Company. Further, it was alleged, the undertook to do all they reasonably could to secure the continuance of the agencies with the plaintiffs, but that, some time after the execution of the agreement, plaintiffs discovered that. Fry and Sons' agency had been previously given up by defendants, also tliat defendants knew that the New Zealand Wax Vesta Company's agency could not pass to the plaintiffs, and that Sykes's Drench agency was not held .on the date of the representations alleged to have been made. The statement of claim further set ; out that the representations were made by tho defendants with tho intention of inducing the plaintiffs to purchase tho business on- the faith of them. Therefore the plaintiffs claimed £6000 as damages. The statement of defence was a general denial tliat the representations alleged to have been made were in effect made. Further, it was denied that the plaintiffs had suffered any damage. The defendants counter-claimed for the balance of the purchase money alleged to be owing on the sale of .the business. Hearing of evidence and argument extended over four days, and the jury, after retiring for three hours, returned a verdict for the defendants by a throefourths majority. Plaintiffs' counsel objected to judgment being entored for the defendants, and moved for a new trial," on the ground that the jury's verdiet- was against the weight of evidence. It was this motion which was argued j'esterday. Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. D. R. Hoggard, appeared for the plaintiffs in support of tho motion, which was opposed by Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K. 0., and Mr. T. Young, on behalf of the defendants. . Legal argument concluded just before 5 p.m., Mr. Justice Edwards stating that the Court would take time to consider the points raised.