SALE OF A MOTOR-LORRY SUPREME COURT CASE.

Evening Post, Volume XC, Issue 86, 9 October 1915, Page 2

SALE OF A MOTOR-LORRY SUPREME COURT CASE.

Judgment was delivered in the Supreme Court to-day by his Honour Mr. Justice Chapman in the action brought by Ernest Henry Spackmaii against George William Woods and John Edward Fitzgerald, the facts of which have been already published in The Post. The plaintiff, a carrier, purchased a motorlorry from the defendant Woods for £650, and the defendant Fitzgerald was the agent for Woods in selling the property. The action was to set aside the contract on the ground that it was induced by certain false and fraudulent misrepresentations made by Fitzgerald in conducting the sale. There was no question of law involved. The trial lasted two days, and a large amount of evidence was given on both sides. It was admitted that it was not sufficient to prove misrepresentations ; they must be shown to be fraudulent, that is to say, false to the knowledge of the party making them, or made recklessly, he not caring whether they were true or not. It was admitted that the vehicle was of a first-class type, and that it had no concealed defect. The original subject of negotiation was an Argyle_ chassis, but when the sale was made it had had a body put on it which made it a motorlorry capable of being used, with temporary alteration, for the carriage of passengers. One of the representations relied on was that the engine was a 33 horse-power engine. It was a matter in dispute whether the representations referred to 30 or 33 horse-power," hut the real dispute on tha-t head was whether it was impliedly represented that this was to be guaged' according to what is called the Royal Automobile Club's rating, or whether it was to be based on the brake horse-powe.r. His Honour said that had the action been one involving- a decision as to the actual power of the engine, he should have had 'to discuss a good deal of very interesting technical evidence given by several witnesses. He had not done so, as that would have been beside the real issue which was whether a charge of fraud had been made out. He found that it was not made out, and in justice to the defendant Fitzgerald he must add that it had wholly failed. Judgment would be given for the defendants, with costs as per scale to each defendant as if £250 were in dispute. He further allowed each defendant a second day at £10 10s and disbursements. Witnesses' expenses and qualifying expenses were allowed to the defendant who subpoenaed or called them. Mr. W. Perry represented the plaintiff. Mr. T. Neave appeared for the defendant Woods, and Mr. A. W. Blair for the defendant Fitzgerald.