Supreme Court.

Southland Times, Issue 7030, 19 January 1885, Page 2

Supreme Court.

Saturday, 17th Jan. Tbe Registrar (Mr A. G. Henderson) in the forenoon delivered the following judgment of Mr Justice Williams, in the action, beard at the last sittings, of SPHOAT V. BAYMOND. I decided at the hearing that the plaintiff as he had paid rent for and still retained' possession of and carried on business upon the premises, and had disposed of the stock-in-trade mentioned in the agreement ha<l lost any-right he might have had to rescind the agreement, and also that he was not entitled to recover in respect of the articles on the premises which belonged to other people* The only question therefore left open was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages in respect of alleged false representations by the defendant, which induced him to enter into the contract. These representations were contained in a letter from the defendant to the plaintiff dated the 12th of April, 1884, In that letter the defendant states that he purchased about 12 monthß beforo, and that he could have got LI rent from a local blacksmith at the time of the purchase, only he had leased a shop in the townsliip, and did not. wish his, the defendant's. As I intimated at the hearing," it seems to me impossible to suppose that tbis statement, even if untrue, could have operated on the mind of any reasonable man to induce him more than 12 months after the period named to enter into the contract in question on the strength of it. The statement itself is of the vaguest kind, and does not even amount to an asset tion that tbe defendant had an offer of LI a week for the ahpp, but is little, if any, more than an expression of the defendant's belief that he could in certain events, which did not happen, have then got that money for ifc. The defendant in the same letter gops on to state that the business averaged about L6O a month, and that be, the defendant, had culled off all the ones who were not good payers. Now, to enable the plaintiff to establish his right to recover damages, he must show that this representation wsb false in facf, and fraudulent in intent ; that is to cay, "not only that it was untrue, but also either tfrat Raymond knew it to be untrue, or that he made it recklessly, 'not caring whether it were true or false (pliffe v. Baker, 11, 28, Div. 275). At the^ trial I was satisfied that the defendant's book, then produced, was an honest recoid of his transactions, but the book apparently contained entries oL business other than blacksmith's bubiness, and it was accordingly left to the Registrar to analyse the entries in tbe book, and endeavor to ascertain jyhat was properly blacksmith's business. This the Registrar has done, with the result that themoriifify average of work done from 31st January, 1883, to 31st January, 1884, is shown to be L67 ss. The plaintiff objeoted to certain items, which tbe Registrar has considered to be properly attributable to blacksmith's business, amounting in all to L6l 9s lOd. Even, however, if this be deducted, it leaves for this twelve moathly period a higher average than L6O a month. I see, however, no reason, looking at the greater part of the itema objected to, and at the evidence given by the plaintiff's own witnessep, that it was customary for blacksmiths to. act a3 agents for Messrs Reid and Gray for the sale of articles manufactured by thorn, why the defendant, in estimating the value of business done in his shop, should not have inoluded these items. At any rate, it could not be said tbat he waa doing anything fraudulent in including them. I think the plaintiff has failed to make oat his case. Judgment for defendant with costs as per scale on claim of L'2B2, disbursements and witnesses' expenses to be fixed by Registrar.