APPELLANT'S BOND

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 67, 22 March 1929, Page 13

APPELLANT'S BOND

THE COURT'S DECISION

Judgment upon an unusual point, that of security for appeal from the Supremo Court, was delivered by tho Court of' Appeal to-day, in tho case of Harry Digby James, printer, of Greymouth, against .Edward Ernest Bayly Mabin, bank manager, of Nelson.

There were on tho Bench Mr. Justice Hordman, Mr. Justice MaeGregor, and Mr. Justice Ostler.

The judgment of Mr. Justice Hcrdniau and Mr. Justice Ostler stated that the pointMi'ad been taken in the case that duo security to the satisfaction of tho Registrar had not been given. A bond had been executed by the appellant who had satisiied the Registrar that he was a substantial man. It was contended that the bond afforded the respondent no moro protection than ho would get from a judgment of the Appeal Court, or tho Court below if the costs of that Court had not been paid.

"But the- bond is something more than such a judgment," the'judgment states. "The obligntion to perform the bond is in favour oi! the Registrar of the Court, and the respondent is accordingly protected to some extent by a. security which the Registrar can sue upon. It is not much, perhaps, but it is something, and it has been lodged in time. For the guidance of registrars in future'cases we desire to state that we regard such a security as unsatisfactory. Respondents should bo given some move adequate protection than an appellant's bare obligation. For the reasons given we dismiss the motion without, costs."

In his judgment, Mr. Justice MacGregor said: —''I agree with the majority of the- Court that in the very special circumstances of this case the appellant ought to be allowed to proceed with his appeal. It is, I think, needless for me now to state the reasons which have in the end enabled me to arrive at this conclusion, which is no doubt in the interests' of substantial justice. At the same time I desire to record my opinion that for the future any appellant to this Court who gives security by bond without sureties thereto, contrary to the express provisions of rule 595 of our Code of Civil Procedui'Oj will run a grave risk' of having his appeal struck but, for non-compli-ance with rule 22 of the Court of Appeal Rules."