A FRUIT BUSINESS

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 131, 4 June 1924, Page 6

A FRUIT BUSINESS

INQUIRY INTO ITS SALE.

The sale of a fruit business' in Cuba street was investigated. by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) at the Supreme Court' to-day, when Annie Keddell, a widow, proceeded against Hilda Organ and \ her husband, Albert Organ, to recover damages amounting to £400 for alleged misrepresentation. The plaintiff was represented by Mr. A. .Dunn, and Mr. O. C. Mazengarb appeared for th» defendants.

_. The ' statement of claim set out that in 1921 Mrs. Organ owned the lease of a shop at 299, Cuba, street, and ■■carried on' the business of a fruiterer. About two years ago: Mrs: Organ agreed to sell to the plaintiff the goodwill of the business and the lease of the premises for £600. The purchase money was duly paid, and possession was given. During the negotiations for the sale Mrs. Organ and her husband, it was alleged, falsely and fraudulently represented' to the plaintiff that the takings of the shop were from £35 to £40 per week. As a matter of fact, it Was stated, the average takings of the shop did not at the time of the sale exceed £20 per week. Plaintiff claimed the sum of £400 as damages. , Allegations of misrepresentation were denied in the statementof defence, and iti was further stated that the defendant Albert Organ took no part in the negotiations for the sale and made no representations of any kind to the plaintiff concerning the business. In his opening statement, Mr. Dunn stated that the plaintiff found, after she had been in occupation for some weeks, that Mr. Organ had been carrying on a betting business. Mr. Masengarb: "I object to that, your Honour. It's not evidence." The Chief Justice: "It has nothing to do with the case." Mr. Dunn submitted that he was entitled to show that Organ had been making money apart from the fruit business. I The Chief Justice: "Not at all. Organ I might have .been investing on the stock exchange, and making money that way. You must devote your attention to the fruit business." j. After the case for the plaintiff had been completed, Mr. Mazengarb submitted that no evidence of misrepresentation had been adduced. •His Honour concurred, and said he was satisfied that the action could not succeed. There was not a tittle of evidence to show that the defendants had fraudulently misrepresented their takings in the shop. Plaintiff would be non-suited.