'These are briefly the facts of the transaction and the question of law to be determined is. whether this contract for the purchase of 3,000 Tanah Merah shares is void on' the ground of fraud, and itis suggested that the plainti perpetrated this
Tis, 27 from the defendant plus the fraud for the parpose of gaining same brokerage from the other party viz. Tls. 64 in all, To. constitute fraud there must be a representa-ton not only false in fact, but also made fraudulently, thatis made with knowledge of its falsity, oF without belief in its truth, or nade Fecklessly, and with a carelessness, without consideration whether the representation is true or false, It fs pleaded that the plainti represented himself to be a member of the "Exchenge" and intended the defendant to believe the was member of the Shanghai Stock Exchange or some other stock and exchange brokers. plaintiff isan outside broker and does not belong to the Stock Exchange or the Share Brokers Association.
T will dear with the defendant's own evidence as to the false representation with regard to belonging to one or the other of the two official bodies—"Stock Exchange" and "Share Brokers Association." Before this transaction, Komaroft and Arakie had met, and a question of Komaroft contributing articles to 'Arakie's financial newspaper was discussed. The plaintie? then said hho was a share broker with a good clientele and Komaroff, the defendant, says:—"I got an impression that he was connected with the by 'Share Brokers Association' and in cross-examination he says thought he belonged to the Share Brokers Association." I. presumed it. never thought he was a member of the Stock Exchange, I thought he was a member of a stock exchange called the Share Brokers Association." It is plead. ed in the statement of defence that the plaintiff caused the defendant to believe that he thought he was member of this "stock exchange' or some other body. This is all the evidence as to the false representation as regards membership of om
brokers.
the other bodies of authorised The plaintiff, some time before the transaction in question, states he was a share broker and the defendant "got the impression" and "presumed! he belonged to one of the two bodies; it is very doubtful which body he really did think the plaintiff belonged to. The defendant did not find out whether his "impression" or "'presumption" was correct, although he had every facility for so doing before the transaction row in question took place. So far as the false representation is concerned there is no evidence to support it,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.