“HOPELESS APPEAL”

Taranaki Daily News, 22 March 1935, Page 7

“HOPELESS APPEAL”

JUDGE DISMISSES CASE IMAGINARY GRIEVANCE IN COURT. money spent unavailingly. FRAUD ALLEGATION NOT PROVED. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, March 21. The Court of Appeal heard to-day the case of Ada Matilda Paterson, Wanganui, in an appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Blair in an action by her against Herbert Taylor, a retired dentist. The appeal was dismissed. The case arose out of the sale of Taylor’s dental practice, and during the hearing in August last Mrs. Paterson made serious allegations against Taylor, bis 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 account. From this decision Mrs. Paterson is appealing. Mr. Heine, for Mrs. Paterson, said the appeal was one on fact, and he submitted there was a prima facie case of fraud. The Chief Justice: “I have read the whole case carefully, but I could not see any suggestion of fraud and, further, it does not matter what the original ground is. All these documents were prepared by Mrs Paterson’s solicitors. If there is any cause of action, it would not be against the present respondent, but against Mrs. Paterson’s solicitors. At any rate these are one’s first impressions.” ■ .. Mr. Heine contended that the evidence of Mrs. Paterson, supported by the documents, established a prima facie case in that the cornerstone of the defence, the alleged contract of February 28, 1928, could be shown not to exist. He agreed with Mr. Justice Smith that in effect his contention was that respondent tricked Mrs. Paterson by means of innocent solicitors. Later the Chief Justice said: “I can understand a client being obsessed by any imaginary grievance and insisting on action being taken and then an appeal, but there is a limit. We are all of the opinion that there was no fraud.’ Mr. Heine said that if that were so there was no point in continuing. The court delivered its judgment; dismissing the appeal with costs. The Chief Justice, giving reasons for the judgment, said: “This is a typical case of a person who suffers from an imaginary grievance and, not being satisfied with judgment in the first instance, continues expending money on a hopeless appeal. It is a hopeless appeal and I agree with the learned judge in the court below that there is not a tittle of evidence of fraud.” Other members of the Bench concurred with this view.