APPEAL DISMISSED

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 68, 22 March 1935, Page 8

APPEAL DISMISSED

A WANGANUI CASE CHIEF JUSTICE’S COMMENT [ Per Preu Association. ] WELLINGTON, March-21. In the Appeal Court case in which Ada Matilda Paterson appealed against the judgment of Mr. Justice Blair at Wanganui, Mr. Heine, for the appellant,said that the appeal was one on fact, and he submitted that there was a prima facie case of fraud. The Chief Justice: “I have read the whole case carefully, and 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 appellant’s solicitors. If there were 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 documents, established a prima facie case in that the corner stone of the defence, namely, 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 had 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 opinion that there was no fraud.” Mr. Heine then said that if that were so there was no point in continuing. The Court delivered judgment dismissing the appeal with costs.

The Chief Justice, in 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 a judgment in the first instance, continues expending money on a hopeless appeal. It is a hopeless appeal. J agree with the learned Judge in the Court below that there was not a tittle of evidence of fraud.” The other members of the Bench concurred.

The appeal was 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 Taylor’s dental practice, and during the hearing in August last 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 that he could not see a shred of justification for the accusations of fraud against Taylor, his solicitors, or the accountant. From this decision Mrs. appealed.