COURT OF APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 180, 19 April 1918, Page 6

COURT OF APPEAL

CANTERBURY CASES. Sittings of the Court of Appeal vera resumed yesterday before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Their Honours Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Cooper, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Sim. A conclusion was reached in the hearing of the will interpretation case in which Hie appellant was John Coote Irwin, farmer, of Fairfield, and the respondents Mary Elizabeth Muirhead, James Henry Muirhead, John M'Phnil, and James Irwin Muirhead. Sir John Findlav, K.C., with him Mr. A. S. Adauis, of Dunedin, appeared for the appellants, and the respondents were lepresented by Mr. M. J. Gresson, of Christchurch. The Court reserved its decision. ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS. In the Appeal Court yesterday, before the Chief Justice Sir Robert Stout and Their Honours Mr. Justice Cooper, Jlr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Sim, a case was brought on which arose out of the sale of a Canterbury grocery business. 'i'iio panies were: William Allan Hopkins, of Christchurch, estate agent (appellant), and Kateriue Christina Easterbrook, of Ciirislclmrch (widow), respondent. The appellant was represented by Mr. C. i'. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. M.' J. Gresson, while Mr. S. G. Raymond, K.C., with him Mr. J. U. Cunningham, appeared for the respondent.The facts of the case were that Mrs. Easterbrook negotiated,' through Hopkins, for the purchase of a grocery business belonging to one Hugh M'Fedries. It was stipulated that the deal was to be conditional upon Mrs. Easterbrook being able to dispose of her property at Pt'ebbleton for the sum of £750. The transaction was eventually completed, but Mrs. Easterbrook was dissatisfied with the deal. She alleged that she was deceived in the representations made to her with regard to the value of the business. She entered into possession on May 4. 191G, and on February 8, 1917, she commenced action in the Supreme Court against M'Fedries and Hopkills. Subsequently the action as against M'Fedries was discontinued i on his paying the widow ,£l5O. The jury awarded Mrs. Easterbrook damages to the annyint of .£415. A motion for a new trial was brought on at the instance of the defendant Hopkins, and this was dismissed by His Honour Mr. Justice Dcnniston, with XlO 10s. costs. Against this decision the defendant Hopkins appealed. Argument had not concluded when tho Court adjourned yesterday, and hearing will accordingly be continued this'morn ing.