SALE OF A HORSE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10298, 5 June 1919, Page 5

SALE OF A HORSE

«> FRAUD ALLEGED INTERESTING SUPREME COURT ACTION. l"re?s Association. CHRISTCHURCH, June 4. An interesting case concerning the sale of a trotting filly, Marie Tempest, occupied the attention of Mr Justice Hcrdman in the Supreme Court. The plaintiff was Elizabeth Craw, wife of George Craw, of Linton, near Palmerston Nrth. and the defendant Ben Jarden, trotting horse/trainer, of Christchureh. Mi- A. F. Wright appeared fcr the phintitf, and Mr M. J. Urcsson lor the defendant. It was claimed, on behalf of the plaintiff, that about January Ist, 1919, the defendant fraudulently represented for and was eligible to start in the New Brighton Trotting Derby, that representation was made with a view to inducing tho plaintiff to purchase the filly as it was of littile or no value to tho plaintiff unless it was entered for the Derbv. The price agreed upon was £4OO. with an additional £2OO out of the tillv's first winnings, and the plaintiff paid a deposit of £IOO and gavo three post-dated cheques for £IOO each for the balance. It was alleged that plaintiff would not have agreed to purchase but for the representation stated, but Marie Tempest was not. eligible for the Derby and had never been entered for it.' and the defendant said that it was impossible at that time to enter her; therefore the. plaintiff asked for the rescission of the agreement sale and purchase and for the return of the deposit with interest and ■the .post-dated cheques. The defence filed was a general denial of the allegations made. As further defences, it was churned that if the representations alleged were made, they were made in good faith and after proper inquiry, and also that the plaintiff purchased the filly on her own judgment and after due examination. His Honour, in giving judgment, stated that before he could hold that fraud was committed evidence of a most, convincing character must be tendered- .It.was,.not enough for him to have-suspicion only. He was not satisfied that the .evidence of Mr and Mrs Craw -was sufficient to grant him in coming to a conclusion thatc Jarden- attempted to defraud them. In this case it was either fraud or nothing. There could be no suggestion of innocent misrepresentation. Judgment would bo given for defendant, with costs.