BAKERY AT EPSOM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20387, 16 October 1929, Page 16

BAKERY AT EPSOM.

VALUE OF A LEASE.

MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGED

CLAIM MADE AGAINST LESSOR,

A dispute over tho leaso of a baker's shop and premisos in Manukau Road, Epsom, led to a claim and counter-claim being argued in tho Supreme Court yostorday beforo Mr. Justice Smith. The claim was based on charges of fraudulent misrepresentation and the counter-claim was for damages through loss of rent and for arrears of rent.

The plaintiff was Peter Elder Ramsay, baker (Mr. Quartley), who claimed from Thomas Alfred Leonard Mitchell, commercial traveller (Mr. Goldstine), £l5O general damages and £6 3s special damages for costs of preparation of the lease of the promises. The counter-claim was for £578 damages for loss of rent and £32 for arrears of rent. Tho leaso had a currency of fivo years at an annual rental of £2OB for tho first two years and of £234 for tho romaining three years. Tho defence denied all allegations of misrepresentation and staled that the plaintiff, in entering on tho leaso, relied solely on his own judgment and knowledge. Mr. Quartloy said that Ramsay was now a baker working for wages at Opotiki and at the time tho leaso was taken he was a baker on his own account.

"Insidious Misrepresentation."

What was complained of was not morely false statements, but tho more insidious form of misrepresentation of not properly qualifying true statements so ,/is to put tliein in their right perspective. The lease was entered into on August 10, 3923, and tho premises had been vacated since last February. Defendant had not been fair and frank, lie induced plaintiff to enter into the Ifriso by fho false representations that tho business site was an exceptionally good one and that all tho business people in tho block wore doing well, and that £SOO had been paid for tho goodwill of the business three years previously. He failed to say that that purchaser was unable to make the place pay and had sold it, or that a later tenant had offered Mitchell £IOO to free him from liability under the lease, but that this was refused. Plaintiff went into (ho business in November with about £l7O and came out of it in February with nothing. 110 found that tho business was no good at all, his turnover being only about £l2 a week.

Information Withheld,

Plaintiff stated that defendant, when selling the business, told him of only tome of the tenants that had been in it, but he found out about others later. When ho complained to defendant that tho business was a failure defendant advised him to stock groceries and sell them at cost, to put bread into the shops at a cheap rate and so to ("boost" tho place for a sale. Plaintiff replied that the business was not a proper ono to sell. In cross-examination, plaintiff admitted that, judging by appearances, the lease would appear a good proposition. Harold John Taylor, baker, gavo evidence that he bought the premises in dispute from a man named Bear for £325, including goodwill and chattels, in August, 1925. Ho found out that ho had been taken down. He could not make the place pay. He eventually sold for £2O. Evidence as to a number of tenants who had occupied the premises was given by John William Bayloy, merchant dealing in general bakers supplies. With one exception they did not do any good in the business. Gase lor the Defence.

Mr. Golrlstine moved for a non-suit on the ground that there had been no proof of misrepresentation. The defendant represented nothing but what was true and told plaintiff not only the best about the property, but also the worst. His Honor reserved the non-suit point. Mr. Goldstine submitted that what the defendant had snid about the property was mere statement of his opinion and not of actual fact.

Evidenco that the locality in which the plaintiff's bakery was was quite a good one for business was given by Charles R. Holeliou.se, grocer. His takings had materially increased since he went there in April, 1928. He presumed that the other businesses in that locality were doing all right. Thfe defendant, in evidence, said that he told plaintiff before the sale everything he knew about the business. He warned him that a bakery business like his was useless without delivery. He instanced a number of businesses in the neighbourhood which were doing well. Defendant was still in the witness-box when the Court adjourned until to-day.