SUIT FAILS

Hokitika Guardian, 20 May 1933, Page 4

SUIT FAILS

BEAUTY SPECIALISTS RUsInJ&S.

NO FRAUDULENT MISREI’IIE-

MENTATION

tft-v

f Per Press Association— Copyright. J

WELLINGTON, .May 18.' No proof of fraudulent misrepresentation was found by Mr Jd-ftico Ostler ; in a Sinrcnre Court case (> in which R üby Mary A Iberia" "Wgleh proceeded egainst for recision of * contract for the sale of a hairdressing business, together with £3lB puichase money. 1 • ,

After hearing . the plaintiff, ■* His Honour said it appeared that the action was founded 1 solely on false i ©presentation. There whs no claim for breach of contract.. '.

Mr AFazengarb, for plaintiff, rgked leave to amend the statement of claim, by alleging that,- by agreement, Mrs Morgan undertook to' instruct Airs Welch fully, and she had failed to do so.

Air Cornish, for defendant,' said that when the charge of fraud was brought, there should bfe evidence to support it.

Airs Alorgan, in evidence, said that she did not undertake.: to turn Airs Welch out a first rate beauty specia> list. She was disappointed that, Mrs Welch did not makfe: more of her opportunities, Had she worked on enough living models, and followed instructions, she , should - have been able to take charge of the salon. His Hob<mP*.,after hearing the .defendant, said there was no proof of fraudulent misrepresentation. Hep belief that-Mrs Welch ■ could); learn & business between August .and - Jan* nary wa.3 not only honest, but: was not unreasonable.