A TOILET SPECIALIST
ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION.
By Telegraph—Presi Association. Auckland, December 9.
In tho Supreme Court, Matilda Platt, a widow, sued Anne Violet Burrows for £2OO, alleging misrepresentation in a negotiation by which she was induced to become a partner in defendant’s business of toilet specialist. Defendant, sho alleged, asserted that she was taking £’3o to £35 a week from the business, and with plaintiff’s assistance the takings would amount, to about £75 weekly. Defendant claimed to remove warts and moles, cure sore eyes, and remove whiskers. She got 35 guineas for removing a man’s beard. The man said he was not satisfied, and eventually plaintiff did not receive tho three guineas a week she was accustomed to draw. Defendant assured her it would be al! right. The defendant denied tho allegations. His Honour said he could not find there had been fraudulent misrepresentation, but ho made an order for taking accounts.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19211210.2.5
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 66, 10 December 1921, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
151A TOILET SPECIALIST Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 66, 10 December 1921, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in