COURT OF APPEAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11643, 3 May 1901, Page 5

COURT OF APPEAL.

STREET-WIDENING IN WELLINGTON. CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION. [lIY TELEGRAPH.—- PRESS ASSOCIATION.] "Wellington-, Thursday. Judgment was delivered in the Court of Appeal yesterday in the case of Johnston v. the Corporation of Wellington, and Lloyd v. the Corporation of Wellington. These were the cases of claims for compensation for land taken for the widening of Willisstreet, Wellington, in which the Corporation omitted to give notice of its intention to dispute the claims within the time prescribed by the Public Works Act. The claimants filed their claims in the .Supreme Court, and seek to enforce them as the judgment of the Supreme Court, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act. The Corporation moved the Supreme Court to set aside the filing of the claims, on the ground that failure to give notice of intention to dispute the claims, was due to inadvertence, and that it ought to be allowed to contest them before the Compensation Court, on the terms of paying the costs of the motions. The motions were removed by consent kito the Court of Appeal. A majority of The Court, namely, the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Denniston, and Mr. Justice Cooper, were of opinion that, the Supreme Court has no power to give a party another opportunity of contesting a claim in the Compensation Court, when the time prescribed by the Public Works Act for doing so has expired, the Compensation Court being a separate Court from the Supreme, Court, the Supreme Court having no inherent jurisdiction over its proceedings, in the absence of fraud or collusion, and the Public Works Act giving the Supreme Court no such power. Mr. Justice Edwards dissented, holding that the tiling of a claim under the circumstances shown", amounted to snatching a judgment of the Supreme Court, and holding it against the merits. His Honor considered this to be an abuse of the process of the Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court had an inherent power to prevent. The majority of the Court being of the opinion that the Court had no power to set aside the filing of the claims, 'he motions in both cases were dismissed, with costs on the highest scale. The Corporation applied for. and obtained, leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The Court was not ready with judgments in the cases of the Solicitor General v. Wallis, and the Union Steal iship Company v. Jakins and Bouei, and a further adjournment, was made to May 22.