SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 10954, 2 May 1901, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO.

J There was a sitting in Banco yesterday, j before his Honour Mr Justice Denniston. I THE NEW BRIGHTON HOTEL CASE. | In this cat-., in v.luth the lessee of the ! New Brighton Hi.'-c. sought to bs> released j from tin- lorf-riiur*. of the lease, caused jby an endor.*»-.m.m under the judgment of |Mr J:is;k. D:nuistcn on appeal, judgment j fa' given. Hi.- Honour r:-f*J?-cd tho application, with £10 10.. cons. Mr Bmg s app-.'i-d in support of the 1 appl cation, ai.d Mr J. B. Fisher to oppos.ASHLEY ROAD BOARD v KOWAI ROAD BOARD. This was a *•*-.."■- on appeal from the judgment o! .Mr Bishop, S.M., in whicii the j Ashley R'«:d Board were appellants and 1 tha Kov ai Road Board respondents. The j anp.--.ll.trts sued the rev* pond en rs in the Court brio v.* r'.-.-r £35 16.--. and the claim I w.t.s that it was the duty of the appellants jto niain:ain -:nd repair the Ashk-y traffic I bridge, which was a pabiic work within ( the meaning of the Public Works Act, j 1832. The respondents were liable to bea: ! .u-.d pay to the appn lants 15J per cent, of | the tx; .nst-s of maintenance and re-pair. It became n"c..'s.-iry for the maintenance j and preservation of the bridge to erect and maintain a gr-in or gravt. bank in the A.-lipv riverbed on Iha npj.trenm side of the brlrbie. and on the southern bank of the river, to f.-nce the name .-.gainst cattle. ,v'd to p'nnt it with willows. The ap p-ijants c.\-j>.Tid*fd a j-nm n' £61G Is 4d in the carrying out the neks, and payment of £95 16s wis d«mn*.b--d. from the re«pon.ient'*, but was refiiy.d.' The Ma*ris trate g:,ve judgment for the respondent on tlie ground that if he decided in favour of the plaint-ifi Board he would h_ practical;, j deciding that a controlling body, on it. | **>'vn mot-on. a:>d v.it'nut. refcrctic*? to the cont riotiting bod c«. expend very larg? sums of m..ney on aih.-ged protective works and then romp?! those bodies to pa- their proportionate shares. Such a position was, in hU opinion, never contemplated by the aril he, therefore, ga**e* judgment _>r ths appellant with cost?. "Thij was the judgment now appealed against. Fur the appellants Mr J.*B. Fisher, with him Mr H.imore. app.;i.rrd, and for the respondent Mr Gen. Harper. L".*-rn-xl counsel argued the case at ?omc length. 'I h? argument wis net rr.nrlirdr.i-l when the Court rose, and it will I.? resumed todtv.