RIGHT OF APPEAL.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIX, Issue 94, 21 March 1939, Page 9

RIGHT OF APPEAL.

TO PRIVY COUNCIL. A CURRENCY QUESTION. WELL!NGTO.V, Alareli 21. A submission that tlie ‘‘£soo sterling” mentioned in the rules governing the right of appeal to tlie Privy Council meant New Zealand and not English currency was made to tlie Court of Appeal yesterday by Air 11. F. O’Leary, K.C." Mr O’Leary, with him Air A. AV. A'ortt. Pzi.lmerston North, was applying on behalf of Dr. Kenriek Holt Dean. Palmerston North, for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The history of the case is as follows: A jury awarded Airs Olive Rita Paterson, of Palmerston North, £572 damages -against Dr. Dean for negligent treatment of ,n.n injured leg. Air Justice Quilliam granted Dr. Dean a. new trial on grounds that tlie verdict was against the weight of evidence and that the damages were excessive. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by Airs P/.i.tereon against the order for a new trial and affirmed the verdict of the jury. Dr. Dean now wishes to appeal to the Privy Council. Mrs Paterson was represented yesterday by Air C. H. Weston, K.C., with him Air L. G. H. Sinclair. The Court consisted of the Chief Justice (Sir Alichael Alyers). Air Justice Ostler, Air Justice Smith and Mr Justice Fair. Decision was reserved. Afr O’Leary submitted that the “£SOO sterling” mentioned in the rules did not mean English currency. As the amount involved in tho present case w.n<s £572 in New Zealand currency tho right of appeal lay. A judgment of the Court of Appeal, consisting of Air Justice Blair, Air Justice Kennedy. Air Justice Callan, and Air Justice Northcroft was read by the Chief Justice. In it Afr Justice Blair said that the £SOO sterling would he £625 in New Zealand currency. Mr Justice Smith said that, as the amount involved in that particular case was only £260. the point might not have been argued. Afr O'Leary: The question is arguable. Afr Justice Ostler: I am inclined to agree, but as this is a judgment of the Court of Appeal we are hound by it. That is one of the difficulties of having two divisions. Afr AA'eston said that he understood that the Court was bound and had not, therefore, prepared argument. If “sterling” were taken to mean English currency the right of appeal might vary from day to day, because the rate of exchange might vary, said Aft- O’Leary. He submitted that the intention was to make a constant figure. It could never have been intended that English currency should he tho basis in some parts of the Empire and local currency in others. In Hong Kong the amount was 5000 dollars or upward; in Afauritius, 10.000 rupees or upward; on Prince Edward Island, £500; ir. Saskatchewan, 4000 dollars, with security for appeal, 2500 dollars. * Counsel rend the recital in the Court ; of Anneal Rules, which stated that the object was the equalising by local circumstances of the conditions under which subjects in the Dominions might I] appeal. How could it be. equalising M the conditions he asked, if local enr- i renev were used in some places and I English currency in others? | 1