APPEAL COURT.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 11875, 23 April 1904, Page 4

APPEAL COURT.

(riLKSS ASSOCIATTOS TFLEGHAM.' WELLINUTOX, April 21. The' Appeal Court gave judgment >n Kiddiford v Borough of the Hutt, which is of interest as bearing on the vexed ques tioii of street widening. The majority of the Court held that the owner of land subdividing it for sale is not bound to dedi-cai-L- the land for widening the stre-et under tho Public Works Act, where the ullotmint.s front, only to existing streets, and the owner is not laying out new streets. In this case the owner had dedicated the land and claimed w>nij>eiisation from the bonmgh. but the Court- held \w was not ri:tit!«-d to compvnsalioii. 'Hie Chief Justice dissented, cuusid-.-rinir tlie owner hound to dtdicate. and entitled to compensation. In the Khitf v Hone Moaka Makonuiko, the Appeal Court belt} that the evidence on each ciiaive v;aa properly admissible in the i.thti-s. iuid, therefore. .Mr Justice Den-iii.-ti.n \u< i;i oulei'iiijj all three counts tv be tiii-d together. The conviction w.ih i-.iHv:r..-d. The Cmrt was unaliii:;r.:is in alloMin,,' the appeal in Paterson V Fleinin.'. an action for ilamap". through ivpondent giirwl by cattle at 'J'au-ia:i-a. 'J"lie judges differed in the reastiiis for ;(rrivinu'"at the concluvioii. but I w.'iv ummimous hi concurring tlmt apjiel- [ l ;! :it was n.it responsible, and the judgment of the Supreme Court, must be reversed so far ;:s he was concerned.