COURT OF APPEAL.

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

COURT OF APPEAL.

THE WELLINGTON COPvrORATION CASES.

(rKESS ASCOCTATIO.V TELn .IlAil.) WELLINGTON". :.;-.*- l. Judgment was delivered in the Court of Appeal this morning in th-e cases of Johnston v Corporation of Wellington, and Lloyd v Corporation of Wellington. Thes? were Lie cas-s of claims tor compensation for land taken for the widening of Willis street. Well.ngton, in which the Corporation omitted to give notice of its. intention to dispute th? claims v.-thin tlie iini? prescribed by ...e Public Woik.s Act- The claimants tile 1 their claims in the Supreme Court, and .ssek to enforce theni as judgments of the Supreme Court in accoid-nco with the provisicr.s of the rublio Works Act. The Corporation move*! in the Supreme Court to set nslde the filing of the claims, on the ground that failure to give notice of intention to dispute the claims was due to inadvertence, and that it ought to be allowed to contest them before the Compensation Court on the terms of paying ths costs of the motions. The. motions were removed, by consent, into the Court of Appeal. The majority of the Cmirt, namely, th. Chief Justice. Mr Justice Denniston, and Mr Justice Cooper, were of opinion that the Supreme Court has no power to give a party another opportunity of contesting a claim in the Compensation Court, when the timo prescribed by the Public Works Act for doing so has expired, the Compensation Court being a separate Court from the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court having no inherent jurisdiction over its proceedings. Mr Justice Edwards dissented, holding that tho filing of the claim, under the circumstances shown, amounted to snatching a judgment of the Suprem? Court and holding it against tbe merits. His Honour considered this to be an abuse of the process of the Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court had inherent power to prevent. Th? majority of the Court being of opinion that the Court had no power to set aside the filing of the claims, the motions in both cases were dismissed, with costs on the -highest scale. The Corporation applied for, and obtained, leave to appeal to tho Privy Council. Tho Court was not ready with its Judgments in the cases of the Solicitor-General v Wall is, and the Union Steamship Company v Jakins and Bower. A further adjournment was therefore made to the 2_ad May.