APPEAL DISMISSED

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 20064, 22 March 1935, Page 6

APPEAL DISMISSED

LITIGATION FOLLOWS SALE OF BUSINESS By Telegraph—Press Association WANGANUI, March 21 The Court of Appeal h earq the case of Ada Matilda Paterson, of Wanganui, an appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Blair, in an action by appellant against Herbert Taylor, retired dentist. The case arose out of the sale of Ta’-lor’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. Fromijhis decision Mrs Paterson appealed. Mr Heine, for the appellant, said that tin: appeal was one on fact, and submitted that there was a prima facie case" of fraud. The Chief Justice; I have read the whole ease carefully, I 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 solicitors, 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 then contended that the evidence of the appellant, supported by documents, established a prima facie case, in that the corner stone of the defence, namely, that 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 the respondent tricked appellant by means of innocent solicitors. Later the Chief Justice said; I can understand a client obsessed by any imaginary grievance 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 then said if that were so, there would be no point in continuing, The Court delivered judgment, dismissing the appeal with costs. The Chief Justice, giving reasons for his judgment, said: “This 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 agree with the learned judge in the Court below that there was not a tittle of evidence of fraud.” Other members of the Bench concurred.