VERACITY OF WITNESS

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 79, 3 April 1926, Page 11

VERACITY OF WITNESS

JUDGE'S IMPRESSIONS

MORE VALUABLE THAN APPELLATE COURT'S

LAND AGENT'S APPEAL DlS- '' .MISSED.

That the impressions of a trial Judge we more reliablo regarding the veracity of a witness than those of an Appellate Court.can. be? was ' -tod in tho judgment of the Court of Appeal on Wednesday dismissing the appeal of Frederick Charles Hand, a Hamilton land agent, from the decision of his Honour Mr. Justice.. Herdman, awarding William Allan Paterson and Jane Paterson the sum of £5241, in a ci»-il actio for tha recovery/'.'of. moneys from a transaction in; which the equity of thoir farm wM* exchanged for a mortgage. ''There was a conflict of evidence in th* Court bblow," says ]■ is Honour, "as to what was said by the appellant fc>; the respondent, William /Up' Pat«rson, at their interview in January, 1921. Mr. Justice Herdman accepted the evidenc > -of the respondent on the ■abject, and found as a fact that the appellant told Pateil on that the mortgage for £.17,650 he was offering to; exchange was over a property' which tad .been sold for £40,000, r T that; the mortgage represented the balanceof .the • purchase money. The learned Judge found also that this statement wm one of the inducements ich led .the respondents to enter into the agreement for the acquisition of the mort-' gigo. ■■ ■'■{'■' . ...■■'. ■•■ ■ ; "It wu contended on behalf of the appellant that the learned Judge was not justified in arriving at.:his conclusion on the uncorroborated eviden j 6t Paterson. Where, as in the present case, there is »n appeal on a 'question of fact a discrimination must be mqdo as to the class of evidence bein^; dealt with, whether the result arrived at depends on the view taken of conflicting testimony, or depends upon the inference* to ba drawn from .'acts ~s to, which there is no controversy. . . . lord Halsbury says,. 'Where..a question of fact has been decidad by a tribvnal which has seen and hoard the witnesses the greatest weight ought to be attached to the finding of such, a tribunal. It has had the opportunity of observing the demeanour of ;ie witnesses, sin.d judging of their c <acity «M»d accuracy in a way that no appellate tribunal can have. But where no question arises as to truthfulness, and where the question is as to the proper inferences to be drawn fjom truthful evidence, then the original, tribunal in in no better position to decide than tho Judges of an Appellate Court' . . . Dealing with the finding of tho Court below ... it seems to be impossible for us to say that such finding was'not justified by the evidence. If the learn ed Judge was satisfied as to the veracity and accuracy of Paterson, then the finding was justified, and ought not to be disturbed. . . i The Lords of tho Judicial Committee specify some of the matters which wouM justify a Court of Appeal in disturbing the finding of a trial Judge .based on verbal testimony. Counsel for the appellant havo not satisfied me tha' any of these matters are to be found in the present case, and the flndinjj 6? the Court below must £tand.? J