SALE OF A TROTTING FILLY

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 215, 5 June 1919, Page 7

SALE OF A TROTTING FILLY

CHARGE OF MISREPRESENTATION : FAILS. ; (By Telesraph—Presß Association.l Christchurch, June i. An interesting case concerning the sale of tha trotting filly Marie Tempest occupied the attention of Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supronie Court. The plaintiff was Elizabeth Craw, wife of George Craw, of Linton, near Palmerston North, and the defendant was Ben Jarden, trotting horse trainer, of Christchurch. Mr. A. F. Wright appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. M. J. Gresson for tho defendant.

It was claimed on behalf of the plaintiff that about January 1, 1919, the defendant fraudulently represented that the filly was entered and was eligible to start in the New Brighton Trotting Derby. That tho representation was made* with a view to inducing the plaintiff to purchase the filly,-as it was of little or no value to the plaintiff unless it-was entered for the Derby. The price agreed upon was'-iMOO, with an additional .£2OO out of the filly's first winnings, and tho plaintiff paid a deposit of .£IOO, and gave three post-dated cheques for .£IOO each for the balance. It was alleged that plaintiff would not have agreed to the purchase, but for the representation stated. But Marie Tempest was not eligible for the Derby, and had never been entered for it, and defendant knew that it was impossible at that time to enter her; therefore, the plaintiff nsljed for a rescission of the agreement for iale and purchase, and for the return of the deposit, with interest, and the postdated cheques. , , • , /The defence filed was a general denial of the allegations made. As> further defences it was claimed that if the representations alleged were made, they were made in good faith and after proper mnuirv, and also that the plaintiff purchased tho filly on her own judgment, and after due examination. His Honour, in giving judgment, stated thnt before he could hold that, fraud was committed, evidence of the most convincin" character must be.tendered. It was not enough for him to have a suspicion unlv. He was not satisfied that tho evidence of Mr. nnd Airs. Craw was sufficient to warrant him in .oominp J« the conclusion that Jarden attempted to defraud them. .In this n t se it was either a fraud or nothing. There could be no su«Kcstion of innocent misrepresentation. Judgment would be given x for the defendant, with costs.