COURT OF APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2216, 31 July 1914, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL

RESERVED JUDGMENTS FULL BENCH DECISIONS ■The Court of Appeal yesterday delivered its reserved judgments in the following cases, full particulars of which wore, published in The Dominion when the'cases were recently argued:—

Blenheim Will Case. In the Blenheim will case, an appeal from the decision of Mr.'Justice Stringer, in sustaining the trustees' construction of the provisions of tlie will of the late oiyner of the Leefield sheep station. the appeal was upheld, with costs at 20 guineas. The appellants were Everaid Aloysius Weld, farmer, of Grassßiere; Henry' Howard, farmer, Blenheim; and John Conolly, solicitor, Blenheim, as executors and trustees of the will of Constance Charlotte Dillon; Mrs. Constance ..Helen Weld, Grassmere; Mrs. Beatrice Eugenie Tesche-maker-Shute, Avondale; Mrs.- Marian Geraldine Rowley, of Perak. Federated Malay States; and Miss Ethel Gebrgina Dillon, Oxford, England,, daughter of the testatrix! The respondent was Francis Noel Dillon,, farmer, of Leefield, Blenheim, who was tho defendant in the Supreme Court.

. Patent Milking Machines. Judgment for the defendants was delivered in the ease (referred for decision to the Court of Appeal from Wanganui), in which the Ridd Milking Machine Co., Ltd., New Plymouth, proceeded against the Simplex Milking Machine Co., Ltd., vWanganui,- for .alleged infringement of patent protecting the plaintiffs' milking machine, ■ claiming an injunction, of restraint, account of profits, or inquiry as to damages, etc. The Court .added .that as a gopd deal of the evidence'in the Court below had been directed at /issues 1 raised' by the defendant, their Honours thought that defendant should be allowed cos+g in the: Lower Court only, and 011 the lowest scale, each party to piy its own costs'! in the CoUrt of Appeal. ' '

SUPREME COURT. v' RESERVE!) JUDGMENTS. The Full Bench of the Supreme Court yesterday delivered the following reserved judgments:— • Kalrariga County v. Bannister and Others. Tll the case' between the Kairanga County Council (plaintiffs) and R. E. Bannister and 1 others (defendants), following upon the issue of an originating summons in the Supreme Court at Pal'inerston North, to determine the continuity of- existence of a Compensation Court, which had adjourned pending ; a suggested settlement (a fresh ■ claim having been preferred since the adjournment), the Court found for the plainLift', with 20 guineas costs, laying it down that once a Compensation Court had been set up under the Act to deal with a claim, no other Court could'deal with the claim which it had boon constituted to deal witli. In the present case the Court ,was still in existence, and an application could'be made for a fixture for the hearing of the claim. The judg-J ment of the Court further-decided that the .claim; of June. 1913, was not . valid, and could not ojierate. as an : abandonment of, the original claim. Plaintiff ,was allowed 20 guineas costs. \

• Native Fishing Rights. The appeal of Waipapakura, a Native woman, of Waitara, against the judgment of a Magistrate in favour of John Hainiltqn-Hempton, Collector of Customs ind Fishery Oflicer, New Plymouth, in a claim by Waipapakura for the recovery of £10 for the' alleged 'wrongful removal of three whitebait fishing, nets at Waitara, was dismissed. The Court held that tlie Magistrate was right in the judgment he gave, .but wrong in the reason ho gave for that judgment-regard to . the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to inquire into tho existence of Native .fishing rights.' Costs ere hot dealt with in the judgment, as the parties had como to an arrangement by which the, Crown agreed to pay the'appellant's costs in the event'of the appeal not being, successful. ' , i Riocarton Borough By-laws. The Court, being evenly divided in its opinion, the appeal of Constable Macarthy against tho decision of Mr. T. A. 8., Bailey, S.M., of Christchurch, that the by-laws of the Riccarton Borough Council, with regard to the driving of stock in the borough thoroughwere ultra vires and unreasonable, was, in accordance with tho practice of the Court in the event of an even division of opinion, dismissed. ■, The Chief Justice expressed the opinion that the by-laws in question were , valid, and that the case should be re-1 mitted to the Magistrate for, further consideration. Mr. Justice ' Cooper agreed with this view. . .■ Mr. Justice Denniston and Mi". Justice Edwards were of opinion that the by-laws were unreasonable, and that tho appeal should be dismissed with ten guineas coßts; Two of-'the respondents were allowed costs. •

Extension of Company's Operations. The application of the Awatuna Cooperative Dairy Factory Company, Ltd., for authority to amend its articles of association to'enable it to considerably extend its' operations (refused by Mr. Justice Edwards), was granted, the Court pointing out .that several things which at first had been asked for had been abandoned by tho applicant company. The- Court amended the . petition so as io prohibit the actual purchase of ships, and granted the application. Closing of Roads. With regard to a motion for a declaratory judgment to determine whether. Section 11 of the Land Act (referring to the proclamation of roads, etc.), could be applied to boroughs— the contention of the plaintiffs, the Wellington City Council, being that the procedure under that section was simpler and less expensive than under the Municipal Corporations Act —the Court held that the section could not apply i