FURNITURE “TIPS.”

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13193, 2 June 1906, Page 2 (Supplement)

FURNITURE “TIPS.”

COURT SEARCHLIGHT ON MODERN

CHIPPENDALE.

Some insights into the methods of a, certain class of furniture dealers was given in the hearing of the case of Wise v. Ballantyne, heard in the High Court before Mr. Justice Ridley and a special jury.

Mr. Wise, an accountant in Lite city, who collects antique furniture, and has chambers in Mount-street, Mayfair, sued Ballantyne, a furniture dealer, of Duck Lane, Wardour-street, for damages for fraudulent representation and breach of warranty. It seems that Mr. Wise was returning from his office one evening when his notice was attracted by a couple of wooden stools which Ballantyne had for sale. The dealer, according to Mr. Wise, asserted that the stools were Chippendale, and that he had given £32 lor them. J Mr. Wise explained that alter giving £30 in notes and a cheque for £8 for them, li*. saw the modern-looking pieces of furniture, now produced in court, the next morning; when " the horrid suspicion came over me that they were not quite as they should be. My next step was to go to the bank and see if my £8 cheque had been cashed. But' I was too late." (Laughter.) Expert advice was sought, and Mr. Wise saw Ballantyne, and told him the stools were absolutely new. The latter declined to refund the" £38, saying he had already paid away a portion of the money. Evidence that the stools were neither old nor Chippendale was given. " They are simply what we term -fakes,'" said the expert, "with old nail-marks, etc., in then:." * Mr. Justice Ridley: "Fakes!"— Yes; I think it has become a word in the English language. Ballantyne, who denied representing* that the stools were Chippendale, was called, and in reply to his lordship, defendant's counsel explained that though Ballantyne only gave £4 10s for the stools, lie arranged with a friend that they should fix the price paid at £50. Mr. Justice Ridley: It is one. of the frankest confessions of swindling 1 iiave ever heard. The jury after retiring for a short period found a verdict for plaintiff lor £38, finding that defendant was guilty of fraudulent representation. Judgment' was entered accordingly.