COURT OF APPEAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVI, Issue 12556, 18 July 1901, Page 2

COURT OF APPEAL.

[Pjoj Kress Association.] WELLINGTON, July 17.

A number of judgments were delivered by t’as Court of Appeal this morning. In the cam of Bex v. Mabin, the. Court unanimously hold that’ since the Criminal Code Act, 1893, ordinary defamatory libel was no 'longer a criminal offence In New Zealand. It is not made an offence by the Criminal Code, and the code provides that since its enactment no person ;:s to be proceeded against except under the code or under somo statute not repealed by it. The Court was uanimously or op.iiiqn that ordinary defamatory libel was not created an offence by the English statute known as Lord Campbell's Act, that Act merely providing a different punishment for a common law offence. The Court, therefore, held that an indictment for ordinary defamatory libel can no longer be lard in Lie colony under that Act any more than, under the code. An indictment will, however, still lie under Lord Campbell’s Act where it is alleged and proved not only that a libel is false, but that it is false to, the knowledge of the accused. The Court was unanimously of opinion that the indictment in the case before it had been rightly quashed. Several of the Judges expressed a strong opinion that the raw required amfehdement.

In the cases of Macarthy v. Barnett and the'Solicitor-General on Hie relation of Barnett v. Macarthy, the Court unanimously held that the Hurt Racecourse is a public racecourse, and the Wellington Racing Club has no power of excluding bookmakers or any other section of the public from the course when race meetings are bemg held. The defendant Barnett was not, therefore, a trespasser when he entered contrary to the prohibition of the stewards. The Court also held that the lease of the course held by the stewards of the Wellington Racing Club from the Board of Trustees is void, as contrary to the trusts imposed by various Acts applying to the case, and must be delivered up to°be cancelled. Mr Beil, for the club, applied for and obtained leave to appeal to the Privy Council. Judgment on the question raised in the case Pollock v. the Bank' ,of New Zealand was given in favour of the plaintiff. The. defendant bank had paid a post-dated cheque of plaintiff’s some days before its date, with the result that insufficient funds were left to-meet other cheques given by the plaintiff, one of which the bank, in consequence, dishonoured. The Court unanimously held that the payment of the post-dated cheque before the due date was wrongful, and the subsequent dishonour of the other cheaue therefore was not justified, and plaintiff was entitled to damages'. The Court dismissed the appeal in the case Commissioner of Stamps v. Girling, holding that the deed of partnership between the members of the family which came before the Court in the case did not amount to a deed of gift from any of the parties to any of the others within the meaning of the Deceased Persons Estates Duties Acts and Stamps Acts. The Court held also that the deed,was not stampable either as a conveyance or sale or as a deed of settlement. Costs were allowed to the respondents on the lowest scale.

In the case of the King v. Bannatyne and Company, the Court was unanimous in dismissing the appeal. The Court agreed with Jhe Chief Justice that since the Chinese Immigrants Act Amendment Act/ 1888, no poll-tax is payable by the master of a vessel in respect of a Chinese member of the crew permanently landing in the colony without the consent of the master, the only remedy being the recovery of the penalty from the Chinaman himself. The Court also agreed that poll-tax having been paid in the case in question in. consequence of the refusal of the Collector of. Customs to give the vessel a clearance without payment, it could be recovered, not having been paid voluntarily. The Court also agreed that an action lay in such case under the Crown Suits Act, 1881. Costs were allowed' to the respondents on the middle scale. -