INTERESTING CIVIL ACTION.

Wanganui Chronicle, Issue 20086, 21 May 1914, Page 7

INTERESTING CIVIL ACTION.

MEYER v. NICHOLLS

SEQUEL TO SUPREME COURT

CASES

, lU J,, , _ ; CLAIM FOR £90 DAMAGES

ALLEGED FRAUDULENT MISREP-

RESENTATION

An echo, of the two- interesting Supreme Court cases concerning John Chiistian Meyer, farmer, of Marton, and John Hockin Nicholls, formerly cf Martoii, and now a prisoner at His Majesty's gnol at New Plymouth, who at the last sitting of the Supreme Court-, was convicted of forgery, was heard in a civil action at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Meyer sought to recover from Nicholls £97 11s. Id., damages for fi audulent misrepresentation.

Mr. Brodie appeared for'plaintiff, and Mr. Collins represented the defendant, who was not present.

Mr. BrodJe, in outlining the case, said that when Meyer took over the business of the Marton Carrying Company from Xicholls, he had no idea that Gibson, who had arranged by letter to take over the business, was a fictitious person. Nicholls conducted the business for a fortnight, whea the rupture took plaw on the Monday following the Saturday on which the promissory note Meyer gavo Nicholls fell due. The books were left by Nicholls at Meyer's office, and Meyer, through his solicitors, w-ote :x letter to Nicholls' solicitors, stating that .unless Nicholls resumed the luismess Meyer .would put in a manager ttua run it at Nicholls' expense. Meyer ran the business after Nicholls' refusal, till December 18. and Nicholls took back the stock and effects after the-first. Supreme Court action. But before this Meyer ■became suspicious that Gibson was bogus, but he felt he must keep on the businessr The future depended on the civil action in the Supremo Court. Meantime, Meyer conducted tha'affairs with all care and business ability. About this time the waters'.devs' strike took place, and the business <vas run at a. loss. 'Meyer now claim jd the exnenses of running the business, less the receipts. Credit had b»en given for £16 worth of book debts. Evki nee was then called. John Christian Meyer, farmer, the plaintiff in the action, deposed that in 0 uly, 1913, he was proprietor of a stabling business at Marton. During th:"s menth he received certain letters from a fictitious person named Gibson, offering to purchase the Mai'ton Carrying Company's business at £1900. Witness brought these letters under the notice of Nicholls, the owner of the Carrying Company's business. It was admitted that as a result of these tetters witness j was induced by fraud to take over the ' possession and management of defend- ! ant's carrying business on August 1, but it was denied that Meyer took it merely as depesik-ej it being asserted that there was a bargain of sale, in pursu-. ance of which Meyer took over the business. After the end of December Nicholls resumed the possession of the carry- ' ing business and plant. Witness said that ho held the business till the end cf December. During this time he paid £129 2s. 4d. in wages; purchased horse feed, costing £89 ss. Bd.; paid a bookkeeper £o; horse-shoeing £12 3s 6d.; ; repairs to cart £8 125.. repairs to harness £2 Bs. 9d., telephone £1 10s., and stationery £1 Is.; rent £24. witness's services, £2 a week for 19 -weeks. The whole of the amounts totalled £307 3s. ' 3d. It aopeared from the books that £15 Is. sd. had been received by Nicholls. but had not been accounted for. Witness had received £19 3s. 7d.. leaving a balance of £16 lGs. 10d., half of which was recoverable. The total amount of book debts was £216 os. od., of which £199 3s. 7d. had been recovered. The claim was reduced by consent of plamtiif to £91 2s. lOd. Continuing, witness said that when ho took over the business, the waterciders' strike occurred, lasting till after Christmas. The effect was that for days and days no goods came through to Marton, and, as a result of the strike and opposition, plaintiff ran the business at a loss

To Mr. Collins: Another business he had was a small shop in town in chargo of a girl, who did practically everything. In Hentember he commenced erecting a brick kiln at Marton. He supervised tisß work. Witness had disposed of his farm, and had held ia clearing sale in April. Witness did the same work as

Nicholls did. He took messages and bustled round to look after work for the teams to do. He himself assessed the work he had done on the usual scale. The witness was further cross-examined by Mr. Collins as to whether he had not purchased the business absolutely from Nicholls. He denied having done so. Re-examined by Mr. Brodie, he said tho contract depended on the fictitious Gibson completing the sale. Mr. Collins, in addressing the Court, objected generally to the action on tne ground that the plaintiff, in not having counter-claimed for damages in the original action by Nicholls in regard to the promissory note, was now precluded from bringing a new action for damages.

His Worship did not agree with this contention, iand gave judgment for the lull amount, £91 2s. Bd.. Court costs £2, and solicitor's fee £5 12s.