A HORSE DEAL

Evening Star, Issue 17062, 5 June 1919, Page 2

A HORSE DEAL

In ths Supreme Court at Christchurch. vestsrday van interesting case concerning the sale of the trotting filly Marie Tempest occupied the attention of Mr Justice Herdman. The plaintiff was Elizabeth Crav,-, wife of Georgo Craw, of Linton, near Palmerstan North, and the defendant Ben Jarden, trotting horse trainer, of Christchurch. It was claimed on behalf of till© plaintiff that about January 1, 1919, defendant fraudulently represented to her that the filly Ixad been entered for and was eligible to start in tho New Brighton Trotting Derby. That representation was made v.-ith a view to inducing plaintiff to purchase the Sllv, as it was qf little or no value to plaintiff unless it was entered for the Derbv. The pries agreed upon was £4OO, with an additional £IOO out of the filly's first winnings, and plaintiff paid a deposit of £IOO and gave three post-dated cheques for £ICO each for the balance. It was alleged till at plaintiff would not have agreed to the purchase but for the representation stated, but Mario Tempest was not eligible for the Derby, and bad never been entered few it, and defendant was aware that it was impossible at that time to enter her. Therefore plaintiff asked for the recession of ths agreement for sale and purchase, and for the return of the deposit, with interest, and post-dated, cheques. The defence filed was a general denial of the allegations made. As further defence, it was claimed that if the representations alleged were made tihey were mado in good faith and after proper inquiry, and also that plaintiff purchased the filly on her own judgment and after duo examination. His Honor, in giving iud'gment, stated that before lie could hold that fraud was committed evidence of a most convincing character must be tendered. It was not enough for him to have suspicion only. He was not satisfied that the evidence of Mr and Mrs Craw was sufficient to warrant Mm in coming to the conclusion that Jarden attempted to defraud them in this case. It was either fraud or nothing. There could be no suggestion of innocent misrepresentation. Judgment would be given'for defendant, with costs.