CASE DISMISSED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 137, 22 March 1935, Page 3

CASE DISMISSED

“HOPELESS APPEAL.” AN “IMAGINARY GRIEVANCE.” (Per Plress Association). WELLINGTON, March 21. The Court of Appeal heard the case of Ada Matilda Paterson, of Wanganui, who is appealing against the decision of Mr Justice Blair in an action by the appellant against Herbert Tay lor, a retired dentist. The case arose out of the sale of Taylor’s dental practice, and during the healing in August last the appellant made serious allegations against Taylor, his solicitors and a public accountant. She then stated that certain documents alleged to bear her signature were forgeries. Mr Justice Blair, in finding against Mrs Paterson, said that he could not see a shred of justification for ,tl)e accusations of fraud against Taylor, his solicitors or the accountant.

From this decision Mrs Paterson now appealed Mr eine, for appellant, said that the appeal was one on fact, and submitted that there was a prima facie case of fraud. The Chief Justice: I have read the whole case carefully. I couldn’t see any suggestion of fraud, and, further, it does not matter what the original ground is, all these documents were prepared by appellant’s solicitors. If there is any cause of action it would not be against the present respondent, but against appellant's solicitors. At any rate, these are one's first impressions. Mr Heine then contended that tlie evidence of appellant, supported by documents, established a prima facie case, in that the corner stone of tlie defence, namely, the alleged contract of February 28, 1928, could be shown not to exist. He agreed with Air Justice Smith that, in effect, bis contention was that respondent had tricked appellant by means of innocent solicitors. . Later the Chief Justice said: I can understand a client, obsessed by any imaginary grievance, insisting on an action being taken and then an appeal, but there is a limit. We are all of the opinion that there was no fraud. Air Heine then said that if that were so there was no point in continuing. The Court delivered its judgment dismissing the appeal with costs. The Chief Justice, giving his reasons for his judgment said: “This is a typical case of rf person who suffers from an imaginary grievance and, not being satisfied with tlie judgment in the first instance,. continues expending money on a hopeless appeal. It is a hopeless appeal. I agree with tho learned Judge in the Court below that there is not a tittle of evidence of fraud.” The other members of the Bench concurred.