Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LAW REPORTS

COURT OF APPEAL PUBLIC TRUSTEE'S COMMON FUND Tho Court of Appeal (first division) sittings were continued yesterday, when tho Bcnch was occupied by their Honours the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Sim, Mr. Justice HosUing, and Mr. Justice Stringer. The case which occupied the attention of the Court was that of the Public Trustee v. tho Hutt River Board. 'The appeal was from a. judgment of His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards, who recently decided the important point that the Public Trustee's Common Fund is not money belonging to the Crown, thatwhen money from that fund is invested in land then tho land in question is not to be deemed the property of the Crown, and consequently the Public Trustee is liable for tho rates levied by the local authority on such land. Tho c|uestion first camo before the Supremo Court (following proceedings in tho Magistrate's Court) in tho form of an originating summons taken out by the Public Trustee for the purpose of determining whether or not he was liable, under the Rating Act and the Rivor Boards Act, in respect of land vested in him at Lower Hutt, the title being acquired as the result of money advanced from the Common Fund on mortgage. His Honour held that the Public Trustee must pay rates, aud it was this decision that was appealed from. Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. F. E. Kclly ; represented the appellant (the Public Trustee), while Mr. T. F. Martin, / with Mr. 15. P. Bunny, appeared for the Hutt River Board. Tho interests of'the Crown were looked after by tho Solicitor-General (Mr. J. W. Salmond, K.C.). Legal argument had not concluded last evening, and the further hearing was adjourned until this morning. PRIVY COUNCIL APPEALS By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright London, June 28. The Privy Council judgment in the case Rutherford v. Acton Adams has been reserved.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19150630.2.103

Bibliographic details

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2501, 30 June 1915, Page 11

Word Count
318

LAW REPORTS Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2501, 30 June 1915, Page 11

LAW REPORTS Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2501, 30 June 1915, Page 11

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert