ARTHUR vs. THE STATE [1961]DLSC620

Date	1961-06-16
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLSC620

VAN LARE JSC

SARKODEE-ADOO JSC

AKIWUMI JS C

R.S. BLAY FOR THE APPELLANT

K. DUA SAKYI FOR THE RESPONDENT (THE STATE).

[1961]DLSC620
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >

ARTHUR

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT]

[1961] GLR 316

DATE: 16TH JUNE, 1961.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

R.S.
BLAY FOR THE APPELLANT.

</div>

VAN LARE, SARKODEE-ADOO AND
AKIWUMI, JJ.S. C

</div>

&nbsp;

(His lordship referred to the facts and continued:) The trial
court properly in our view rightly rejected the alleged claim of right in good
faith and it is clear to us upon a consideration of all the surrounding
circumstances that the appellant could not have acted in good faith when he
represented to the complainant that he was the absolute owner of the house.
There is no doubt that the appellant knew that his title was superseded when
the house was purchased by Ama Serwa at a public auction at the instance of the
mortgagee, Bassil. He also knew that Bassil had been ordered by the High Court
to convey title in the house to the purchaser Ama Serwa in defeat of any claim
of title which he might put forward in respect of the property. Notwithstanding
all this the appellant withheld such knowledge from the complainant during the
negotiations for the sale of the house by him. We are of opinion that the
withholding of such material facts from the complainant is evidence from which
clear intent to defraud must be inferred. This, therefore, completely destroys
the defence of a claim of right in good faith which is the main ground of
appeal seriously argued before us.

The law as we understand it is that if a false statement or
representation to the knowledge of the person making it, is made, and by this
means money is obtained and the person who gives that money does so in reliance
on the false statement or representation, then that would be sufficient to
support a charge of obtaining money by false pretences. In the instant case we
find the necessary ingredients present in that the appellant falsely
represented that he was the rightful owner of the house at the time he
purported to convey to the complainant from whom he obtained a large sum of
money, and as the complainant believing such false representations paid to the
appellant such amount in the purported purchase of the house, the appellant
thereby brought himself within the mischief contemplated by the charge
preferred against him.

We find no substance in any of the other grounds of appeal and in
the result we dismiss the appeal.

<a name="_gjdgxs"></a>&nbsp;