LAWSUIT OVER BAKERY

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 794, 15 October 1929, Page 14

LAWSUIT OVER BAKERY

MISREPRESENTATION i ALLEGED COUNTER-CLAIM FOR DAMAGES Fraudulent misrepresentation concerning the prospects of an Epsom bakery business was alleged by Peter Elder Ramsay, an Opotiki baker, who sued Thomas Alfred Leonard Mitchell, an Auckland gentleman, for cancellation of the lease entered into, and £156 damages, in the Supreme Court today. The action was heard by Mr. Justice Smith. IDAMSAY claimed that he was induced to lease the bakery I premises in Manukau Road on August 10 last year for a term of five years on the alleged fraudulent representations and suppression of fact by Mitchell. The statements supposed to have been made by Mitchell included i one to the effect that the business i was exceptionally well situated and that all business people in the block were doing well; that the late tenant could not make the business pay because of the drinking habits of his wife, and that £SOO had been paid for the goodwill of the premises three years previously, whereas the lessee being unable to make the business pay, sold it, and after it had passed through two other men’s hands the last offered Mitchell £IOO to release him from the lease. COUNTER-CLAIM MADE A counter-claim for £577 16s Id damages for loss of rental and £32 for arrears of rent was made by Mitchell. Defendant denied the allegations' of misrepresentation, claiming that Ramsay had acted on his own initiative. Mr. Quartley appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Goldstine for defendant. In response to an advertisement for a bakery business, Ramsay told the court that he was offered the Manukau Road business by Mitchell, who stated that; all the previous tenants had done well, until the last, a man named York. The last lessee, Mitchell declared, had become involved over another business, in addition to which Mrs. York was addicted to drink, and the tenant had been obliged to leave. After selling up his home in Gisborne, he came to Auckland and entered into the lease. On canvassing for business he received a poor response, which prompted him to institute inquiries concerning the trade. He complained to Mitchell, and announced it was impossible to carry on and his intention of closing down. Mitchell urged him to hold on until March, as he was endeavouring to sell the property. Mitchell suggested to witness to stock groceries and sell them at cost, get bread into the shop at a cheap rate and sell the business, but witness replied there was no business to dispose of. He entered into the premises with £l7O and came out with nothing. His turnover averaged £l2 weekly.