Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

BIG HAND CASE.

PARTIES TO PAY THEIR OWN COSTS. , DUNEDIN. July 2'?. Tn the Supreme Court-, Mr Justice Sim gave judgment in an action, Sydney Shale versus James Samson, a claim for a remission of contract in connection with an exchange of farm properties on account of alleged false representations, or in the alternative £IO,OOO damages. Defendant also a'lcged fraudulent representations and. sought £13,200 as damages, lint the counter-claim was droped. The judge said the exchange was arranged through the agency of Herbert Henry Cook, who declined to attend as a witness at the hearing in Dunedin, and had his evidence taken in'Christchurch. /Each side accused Codk of giving untiue evidence, botli stating that lie was a gentleman on whose word little reliance could he placed. The judge pointed out that there was considerable conflict of evidence and said the ease largely resolved itself into a question of the credibility of plaintiff and his brothers. They gave evidence .in an unsatisfactory manner-, aiiswering questions with hesitation and reluctance, and creating the impression that their chief anxiety j was to avoid admissions that might hurt their case. The plaintiff could not have relied oil the statements in the contract but acted on his own observation and judgment. After plaintiff bad visited the Awarua property and come to the conclusion that he had been deceived, probably the bestthing he could have done would have been to got out of the transaction, and be travelled to Awarua again, not really to satisfy himself as to his position, but to get evidence to justify a rescission. The judge was satisfied plaintiff knew before entering into the contract that the statements complained of were untrije. The result v.as that plaintiff failed to prove his if so. Judgment was given for defendant on the claim- and for plaintiff oil the counter claim. TTie judge exercised the discretion of ‘the court under the code of civil procedure in ordering each party to pay their own casts..

The case lasted over a week and the total costs are about £2OOO.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19260727.2.36

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 27 July 1926, Page 4

Word count
Tapeke kupu
342

BIG HAND CASE. Hokitika Guardian, 27 July 1926, Page 4

BIG HAND CASE. Hokitika Guardian, 27 July 1926, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert