EMPHATIC DENIAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26841, 4 August 1948, Page 7

EMPHATIC DENIAL

USE OF DAMAGED MATERIAL SALE OF CITY GOWN SHOP An emphatic denial that he had bought faded or damaged material for making up into gowns in connection with Schiaparelli Gowns, Ltd., was made by Rodney Augustine Farry, plaintiff in the action in which R. Farry and Co.. Ltd., claimed £2OOO, allegedly owing under deed, from Joseph and Julie George in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr Justice Kennedy and a jury of 12. There was a counter-claim for £3OOO damages for loss on the gowns due to allegedly fraudulent representations. Farry was represented by Mr I. B. Stevenson, with him Mr M. Joel, and the Georges by Mr F. W. Guest, with him Mr W. McAlevey. William Arnold John Perry, investigating accountant for the Dunedin branch of the Price Tribunal, gave evidence concernnig price order approvals for gowns. This concluded the evidence for the defendants and Mr Stevenson said he would formally move for a nonsuit on the grounds that there was no evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation to go before the jury. His Honor said that in conformity with the usual practice he would provisionally over-rule the motion. Case for Plaintiff John Butler, land agent, conducting the business of the Central Land Agency said the defendants had called on him concerning a shop and workroom where they could make and display gowns. Witness told them that the plaintiff had a business for sale and that he might take less than the £4OOO he originally wanted for it. Witness said the defendants had examined “ about two dozen ” gowns in the plaintiff’s shop. William Mouatt, silk buyer for a Dunedin retail firm, stated that the plaintiff had purchased a quantity of materials from him. Witness denied that he had sold him any damaged materials or that the plaintiff had ever asked witness for any. Plaintiff in evidence said that up to the time of his purchase of the business from Mr and Mrs Vale in January, 1947, he had no experience of the textile and manufacturing trade. Witness paid £SOO for the Vales’ business in the Anderson’s Bay road, the goods taken over including 28 garments described as model frocks. Witness arranged for Mr and Mrs Vale to run the factory for him for three years but he dismissed them after three months. During the period the Vales were employed by him, approximately 126 gowns had been made. It was intended to sell the output of the factory in a shop In the city. Witness said he leased premises through a city real estate firm, the rental being £2l 13s 4d a month, and he spent £670 on it. The premises were ready at the end of October. Plaintiff, continuing his evidence, said he had made a trip to Wellington to see the Price Tribunal regarding the rate of profit to be allowed him. From Wellington he went to Auckland where he purchased a launch. This transaction, he explained, would require all the money he had, and it would also necessitate borrowing. He had therefore decided to sell his gown business, garage, and home and furniture. The launch now belonged to witness. He added that he had given some of the gowns to relatives and they had “ got a most favourable reception.” About 400 gowns were made by the end of October. He had obtained permission to pay in excess of award wages "to some employees because they were doing skilled work. Offer to Defendants Witness denied that he had purchased faded or flawed material. He explained that he had attempted to buy material from wholesale houses but had not been successful. He discussed this difficulty with Mr and Mrs Vale and then tried to get materials from retailers. Witness said he had offered to sell 200 gowns to the defendants at £8 each, but they decided that if they made any purchase they would take the lot.

After detailing the purchase of the business by the defendants witness said he had 1 offered to take the business back again, but the defendants were not agreeable to this. He had declined to accept a proposal communicated to him through his solicitors that he should take £I2OO in settlement of the’ £2OOO owing. He had always been prepared to meet the defendants in any reasonable way. Since the present action commenced witness had interviewed some of the people from whom he had bought material, one of these being the previous witness, William Mouatt. When the court adjourned until this morning, witness was being crossexamined by Mr Guest.