COURT OF APPEAL,

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1189, 26 July 1911, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL,

EIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY. The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) heard the conclusion of the argument, in the appeal against a judgment delivered at Napier by Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, h.JI. Tho casa v,as one in which "a Uimeso named Lay Fun had been charged with having had opium (in a form contrary to the provisions of the Opium Act) in his possession. The magistrate laid decided that. Lay Fun was guiltv and a flue of .£SO had been imposed, in default three months' imprisoiinie.ii The defendant then moved for a. writ of prohibition, and, by consent, it was arranged that the defendant should, at ths same time, move for .1 writ of certioran to have tho conviction quashed Mr. G. loogood appe.-tred and snpnorted tno motion. Mr. H. 11. Ostler, representing the Crown, opposed it. llr. Tocgood submitted that, the Opium Act was a Customs Act, and a person , charged under a Customs Act had the right of trial by jury. Therefore a writ ot prohibition must lie, en the "round that the magistrate did not at anvtimo (luring the trial advise the defendant tr-at he had a right of trial by jury. Judgment was reserved".

ABOUT A NEV/SPAPER LEASE. "MANAWATTJ TIMES." Before Justices Sir Joshua Williams Ldwtirds, Chapman, and Sim, there was concluded the hearing of tho cafo W. H. Smith (appellant) v. £. D. Hoben (respondent). The appellant is proprietor of the newpaper, the "Manawatu Daily Times," and tho respondent is lessee and editor of tho paper. The appeal wa? against a judgment of the Chief Justice regarding 0 question of interpretation of a lease. Ap. pellant had disputed respondent's action m drawing .£lO weekly from tho business in anticipation of profits, and respondent had claimed that the agreement gave him the right so to do. Mr. C. B. Collins appeared for the appellant, and Mr. C. A. Loughnan for tho respondent. .After hearing argument, their Honours reserved decision. BLENHEIM CASE. AX AGREEMENT REPUDIATED. The Chief Justice, and Justices Sir Joshua. "Williams, Edwards .and Sim were on the Bench when the case of John Joseph Corry v. Bertha Paine was called. Mr. A. V. Blair, with him Mr. G. H. I-ell appeared for the appellant, and Mr. H. D. Bell, with him Mr. R. M'Callum, for the respondent. The appellant is a iner,c!iant of Blenneim, and the respondent is a married w ,°ra/>n, wife of frank Paine, decorator, of Blenheim. In June, 1000, Corrv entered into an agreement to purchase'from Paine, tho wharf known as Griffiin's "hart, the agreed-upon price being .6HOO. feubscriiienfly Corry repudiated tha agreement, having discovered that Paine "had not a. title to all the land oir which the whart was built. ,\s a result of this, Paine siied Corry in the Magistrate's Court Blenheim, claiming .6100, instalment due and X3i interest due under tho agreement to purchase. The case was removed to the Supreme Court at Nelson. Corry contended that the agreement .specifically provided for the transfer by Paine to tiim of the fee simple ot the land on which the whart was built, and the wharf was built mainly upon land not belonging to Paine and on land to which he had no right Io call for a title. Corry, therefore, counterclaimed to recover j!517, being all moneys paid under tho agreement and certain other moneys in addition. Mr. Justice Chapman heard tho case at Nelson, and decided that Corry should specifically perform the contract, subject to an allowance of .£75. by way of compensation for proved defects. It was against this decision that Corry now an pealed. The appeal was only part heard when the Court rose yesterday. It will be resumed this morning.