PLAYLAND CASE

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 141, 9 March 1940, Page 9

PLAYLAND CASE

Allegation Of Fraud Withdrawn ANOTHER COUNTER-CLAIM HEARD The counter-claim and allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation brought by Carl Wessman, stallholder al i’lavland, Centennial Exhibition, against Henry Self, general manager ami representative in New Zealand of Double Grip Tubular Steel Devices, Ltd., were withdrawn by Wessman when rhe hearing was resumed in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday The company’s claim against Wessman w is adjourned sine die on terms agreed upon by the parlies. This was the second of several eases in which the company is claiming arrears of rent from stallholders and the stallholders are counter-claiming damages for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. Mr. A. T. Young is appearing for the plaintiff company, and Mr. Evan Parry for the defendant in each of the cases called so far. Sidney Herbert Newcombe was the next defendant, from whom the company claimed £244/12/6. Formal proof of debt was given and then evidence avus taken on Newcombe’s counterclaim for £5OO damages. in which fraudulent misrepresentation Avas also alleged. Newcombe said his outgoings for the Exhibition were £877/11/4 and bis takings had been £242. He did net expect to realize much on his equipment. At Christmas time lie did not get a pool for his sideshow for four whole days and nights, and all that time he did not make a sixpence. “I have witnesses to prove it —the men working for me,” he said. He ran the same game at the Wellington Winter Show during the height of the depression and always managed to pay wages at the least, but this rime lie could not pay them. The reason was that people did not come up the street in numbers'to his stall. They came only in pairs or singly. They would ask how the game Avas played and when it was explained to them they said it was a, good game, paid their sixpences and waited for other people to arrive and make up the num ber required for a pool—l2. But as the crowds did not go up the street, those who had paid would ask for and receive their money back. Had he knoAvn the nature of the street he would not have taken a stall there. His real complaint was that not enough people came past his stand. During the afternoon proceedings his Honour raised the question ;rs to whether a prima facie case of fraud had been made out. Counsel’s Submissions. Mr. Parry submitted that when .Self made additions as alleged to the original plan shown Newcombe, then Newcombe and the other stallholders should have been given the opportunity of rescinding their contracts or taking other action. There had frequently been cases where a representor did not know at the time that what he was doing was false, ami when he subsequently found out did nothing aibout it. His Honour said that to make it fraudulent they had to produce facts to show that iSeff tvas guilty of deceit, but Avhere were the facts to shoiv he was guilty of deceit before the contract was made? It was quite obvious that plaintiffs in the counter-claims felt sore. They had lost money and at the last moment they came along alleging misrepresentation. That was a very serious.thing to allege, and his Honour wanted to give Mr. Parry every opportunity of showing' from the evidence Avhere-fraud had occurred. It was no use going on with a whole string of evidence if a prima facie case of fraud had not been made out. Evidence in support of the counterclaim was given by three more stallholders, Edward Jasper, Horace Wilson, and William James Oliver Winston. Wilson denied that the plan produced in Court was the one shown him when lie took space. Even with the millions expected, Playland would have been a failure because the acreage Avas too great, whereas the Exhibition would have been a success. After counsel had addressed the Court, an adjournment was taken till 10.30 a.m. on Monday.