APPEAL COURT

Grey River Argus, 22 March 1935, Page 5

APPEAL COURT

WELLINGTON, March 21. The Court of Appeal is hearing the case of Ada Matilda Patterson, of Wanganui, an appeal against the decision of Air. Justice Blair, in an action by the appellant against Herbert Taylor, retired dentist. The case arose out of the sale of Taylor’s dental practice, and during the hearing in August last, appellant made serious allegations against Tavlor, his solicitor. and a public accountant. She then stated that cer tain documents alleged to bear her signature were forgeries. Air. Justice Blair, in finding against Airs. Patterson, said ho could not see a shred of justification for the accusations of fraud against Taylor, his solicitors or the accountant. From this decision, Mrs. Patterson is appealing. Mr. Heine, for the appellant, said that the appeal was one on fact, and he submitted there was a prima facie case of fraud. The Chief Justice: I have read the whole case carefully. T couldn’t see any suggestion of fraud and further, it does not matter what the original ground is. All those documents were prepared bv appellant’s solicitor. If there is any ease of action it would not be against the present respondent but against the appellant’s solicitors. At any rate, these are one’s first impressions. Air. Heine then contended that the evidence of appellant, supported by documents established a prima facie case in that the corner stone of the defence, namely, the alleged contract of February 28, 1928, could be shown not to exist. He agreed with Air. Justice Smith that in effect his contention was that respondent tricked appellant by means of innocent solicitors.

Later, the Chief Justice said: <4 I can understand a client obsessed by any imaginary grievance insisting on action being taken, and then an appeal, but there is a limit. We are all of the opinion there is no fraud.”

Air. Heine then said if that were so, there was no point in continuing. The Court delivered judgment, dismissing the’’appeal with costs. The Chief Justice giving reasons for his judgment, said: “This is a typical case of a person who suffers from an imaginary grievance and not being satisfied with the judgment in the first instance, continues expending money on a hopeless appeal. It must be a hopeless appeal. I agree with the learned Judge in the Court below that there is not a tittle of evidence of fraud.”

The other members of the Bench concurred.

BURNS WITH PERMANENT WAVE

WELLINGTON, March 20.

Damages to the amount of £25 were awarded plaintiff by Mr. W. F. Stillwell, S.M., in the reserved decision given to-day, in the case in which Airs. Violet Eveline Towers claimed £5O from Ivan Barbara Riche, hairdresser, for burns received while having her hair permanently waved. The Magistrate said that negligence might reasonably be inferred against the defendant.