COURT OF APPEAL. DELIVERY OF JUDGMENTS.

Evening Post, Volume LX, Issue 114, 10 November 1900, Page 5

COURT OF APPEAL. DELIVERY OF JUDGMENTS.

A further baton of judgments in cases "trhioh have been argued at the' present sittings of the Court of Appeal was delivered this morning. STAPLES AND CO. v. CORBY. The appeal in this case having been dismissed, appellant had asked for leave to appeal to the Privy' Council, with the continuance $ an, order restraining Corby and the Distriot Land Registrar from, bringing the land oh. which the. Prince of Wales Hotel is built under the provisions of the Land Transfer Act. Mr. Justice Edwards read the judgment of the Court, whioh considered that under the special and peculiar circumstances of the case leave should be granted to appeal to the Privy Council and aa order made preventing the land being brought und&r the Land Transfer Act until the matter; ha.d been finally decided by the Privy Council, appellant to give an undertaking to prosecute. , the appeal withdiligence, to pay any damages that might be suffered by the respondent by the continuance of the injunction. GLENNY v. RATHBONE. This was t Hawkes Bay case, and involved a singular question of title. The short facts were that one D&niell, a Crown grantee, sold eighty acres, of land to a settler named Davern in 1873. Davern sold to Glenny in 1884. Daniell subsequently sold the property again and conveyed it formally to Rathbone, who registered the conveyance, but did not attempt to take possession until 21 years' after Pavenj's purchase. He then attempted to enter. Mr. Justice Edwards held tliat Glenny had been, in effective possession all the time, but that he did not obtain a title under the Statute of Limitations as against Rathhone. TJje Court now reversed .that decision, with costs on- the middle scale, .Holding, that jjtathbone was barred under the Statute of Limitations. Judgment was ordered .to be entered for plaintiff for £10 damages, with a perpetual injunction against defendant. Costs were awarded according to scale, £15 15s being, allowed for second day of trial, and £7 7s for third day, with witnesses' expenses and disbursements. Leave was given to apply for leave to appeal to the Privy -Council on the filing of certain affidavits. , ' REGINA v. A. M. M. BOURKE. The question in j^his case was whether the effect of the Juries Act, 1898, was to give the Crown the right of peremptory qhallenge of jurors to the number of six, or whether it was intended to put the Crown's right of "Stand aside" and its right of challenge on the same footing as that of the prisoner. The Chie,f Justice was of opinion that the order to stand aside was not a challenge b,ut merely postponing the challenge for cause, and was therefore not affected by the Juries Act. Judges Williams, Conolly, Edwards, and Martin concurred, though Mr. Justice Conolly said he had a doubt on the subject, The conviction was ordered to stand. REGINA v. FRANCIS KING. The point here was whether a man indicted for robbery could be cpnvicted of common assault. The Court held in effect that an indictment must necessarily include the charge on which a man is convicted. As the charge of common assault was not necessarily ' included in the indictment for robbery in question the conviction must be quashed. REGINA v. FITZEN. | Appellant had been convicted at W»" nganui of shooting a horse which had trespassed on his property, and the question reserved was whether he could plead cplour of right in acting as he had done. The Court unanimously held that the cage differed from the shooting of wild cattle, and' that repeated acts of trespass did not give justification. The convection Mas accordingly ordered to stand. ROBJOHNS v. HILL. The whole question here was the interpretation of a letter promising to pay £250, in which appeared the words "payments to extend 10 years." The Chief Justice had held tliat there was an option to pay at any time within the period.The Court allowed the appeal, and upheld the Magistrate's decision affirming that the words meant that there were to be annual equal payments. Costs were allowed in the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, and lower Court. The Court announced that the remaining judgments would be delivered on Saturday, 24th inst.