COURT OF APPEAL.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 72, 25 March 1912, Page 8

COURT OF APPEAL.

; FIRST SITTING IN 1912, • * LENGTHY LIST. ; The fir«t sitting of the Court of Appeal for this year commenced to-day, the Bench being occupied by Justices Williams, Denniston, Edwards, Chapman, and Sim. - The list of cases is as under (the first seven coming in the order stated) : — F. 08. Loughnan and the Cambridge Boad Board v. J. D. P. Morgan; Pit<&ithly and Co. v. John M'Leau and ton; District Land Registrar v. W. H. irightwell and J. ,JB. Finlay; Public '.£rustee\"v. E. D. B. Pilkington; Kauri Timber Company, Ltd., v. the Commissioner of Taxes; Taupo Totara Timber Company v. the Commissioner of Taxes ; Thomas M'Lean v. F. R. H. Brice; Schmidt and Bellshaw v. Greenwood ; ib the matter 'of the Law Practitioners .Act and re Somerville and re Stevens; H. B. Williams and others v. Miramar, Ltd. ; the D.I.C. *. the Wellington City Corporation (a question regarding city leaseholds); Marconi Wireless. Telegraph. Company, Ltd., v. the King; the King v. Mary Hassell and Charlotte Campbell; the King v. Martha Jane Q'Shaughnessy; in the matter of the ■public Trust Office Act (two special «£bm) ; Amy Levin v. the Commissioner of Taxes ; Clayton v. Chambers ; Dalgety and Co., Ltd., v. the Solicitor-General; Reid v. the Equitable Life Assurance Company ; King v. the Auckland Electric Tramway Company. - The two following cases will come before the Full Court: International Investment Company v. Andrews and the .Wellington Hospital Board v. the WelJbgton City Council. * OKAHUKURA BLOCK CASE. ■ The Court delivered judgment in the 'dispute over ihe 4 area of the Okahukura Black (Taupo), heard at the last sitting. 1 The parties were Taituma Maranga- - tana and others, owners of Okahukura No. 2, appellants, 'and Patena Kerehi and another, owner® of 8M No. 2, respondents. Tn jnartitioning Okahukura No. 2. its area to the. plan) was found to be 2360 acres, but. an accurate survey later showed that the subdivision ' coneieted of only 726 acres. On application to the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court the area was increased to 2360 acres. By a reinvestigation later the area -was fixed at- 1100 acres. Then the owners of Okahtiknra No. 2 applied to- the Chief Judge, asking that the area be iiscreased to 2360 ncues, on the ground that there had been a manifest error in a decision of the- Native Appellate Court. The owners of 8M No. 2 asked to have the Chief Judge prohibited from proceeding with the application. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Judge- had no jurisdiction to" interfere with the order made by the Appellate Court in 1907. The present appeal was made from this decision. The Court of Appeal held by a majority verdict (Justices Williams, Edwards, and Chapman, and Justice Sim. against) that the .appeal must be allowed. Provisional leave to appeal to the Trivy Council was granted. .At the hearing, Mr. H. D. Bell, K.C., •with him Mr. T. W. Lewis, of Hastings, appeared for the appellants, and Mr. M. Chapman, X.C.. with him Mr. S. A. Atkinson, for respondents. A QTJESTION OF FENCING. A Cambridge appeal relating to the terection of fences on a public road was the first case to come before the Court of Appeal. -The parties were F. 08. Loughnan, stipendiary magistrate, of Hamilton, and the Cambridge Road Beard, appellants, and John David Proper Morgan, farmer, of Hantapu, respondent. The Court consisted of Justices Williams, Denniston, and Chapman. .Mr. W. F. Buckland appeared for appellants and Mr. A. W. Blair for respondent. On 27th September, 1911, at Hamil-' ton, Mr. Justice Edwards delivered judgment on a motion for a writ cf mandamus commanding the stipendiary magistrate at Cambridge to determine a complaint by. Morgan, requiring the Cambridge Boad Beard to show cause why ifc should not issue a notice under section 129 of the Public Works Act in accordance with a petition' of five ratepayers. Certain fences are erected across a public road which is within the jurisdiction of, ihe board. These fences were not er-eet-ed by permission of the board. It is" alleged by the board, and it is ( not> denied, - that the road is in a state of nature, and if all the fences- were removed it would still be useless as a road,, unless a considerable sum cf money •was spent upon ib. On 29th. October, 1910, Morgan and four others requested the beard to serve notice on those at ■whose instance the fences were erected, ordering their removal within a time- to be appointed. The board refused to giva euch notices, and Morgan lodged a complaint in the Magistrate's Court, calling on the board tc show cause why such notice should not be given. Without going into the merits of the case, tha magistrate dismissed the complaint upon the ground that section 129 aDplied only to gates and fences erected by permission of a local authority under the Public Works Act. Morgan appealed to the Supreme Court, and Mr. ■ Justice Edwards ordered the issue of a writ of mandamus to tha magistrate to determine the complaint. From this decision ihe stipendiary magistrate and the board now appealed. (Proceeding.)