HOPELESS APPEAL

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18661, 22 March 1935, Page 6

HOPELESS APPEAL

j IMAGINARY GRIEVANCE WOMAN'S ACTION FAILS CHIEF JUDGE'S COMMENT (Per Press Association,) WELLINGTON., this day. The Court of Appeal is hearing the. case of Ada Matilda, Paterson, of Wanganui, an appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Blair in an action by the appellant against Herbert Taylor, a retired dentist. The case arose out of the sale of Taylor's dental practice, and during the hearing in August last the appellant made serious allegations against Taylor/' his solicitors, and a public accountant. She then stated that certain documents alleged to bear her signature Were forgeries. Mr. Justice Blair, in finding against. Mrs. Paterson, said he could not see a shred of justification for the accusations of fraud against Taylor, his solicitors, or the accountant. From this decision, Mrs. Paterson is appealing. Mr. Heine, for the appellant, said the appeal was one on fact, and he submitted that there was a prima facie case of fraud.

The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers : I have read the whole case carefully. 1 couldn't see any suggestion of fraud, and, further, it does not matter what the original ground is. all these documents were prepared by the appellant's solicitor. If there is any cause 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. Mr. Heine contended that the evidence of the appellant, supported by the documents, established a prima, facie case, in that; the corner stone of the defence, namely, an alleged contract of February 28, 19sa, could be shown not to exist.

lie agreed with Mr. Justice Smith that, in effect., his contention was that the respondent tricked the appellant by means of innocent solicitors. Later, the Chief Justice said: "1 can understand a client obsessed by any imaginary grievance insisting on an action being taken, and then an appeal, but! there is a limit. We are. all of the opinion that, there is no fraud." Mr. Heine then said that if that were so. there is no point in continuing. The court then delivered judgment, dismissing the appeal', with costs. The Chief Justice, in giving the reasons for the judgment, said: "'Phis 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 is a. hopeless appeal. I. ajjree with the learned judge in the court, below that there is not a tittle of evidence of fraud." , Other members of the Bench concurred.