Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

COURT OF APPEAL.

[BY TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] Wellington, Friday. The Appeal Court reserved judgment in the case of Duncan and another v. the Lower Hutfc Borough Council, the question involved being whether, where land is cut up for ssle, each frontage of any allotment having more than one frontage must be a frontage to a street of not less than 66ft in width, or whether it is sufficient if each allotment has one frontage to a street of that width.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19030328.2.34

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12231, 28 March 1903, Page 5

Word Count
80

COURT OF APPEAL. New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12231, 28 March 1903, Page 5

COURT OF APPEAL. New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12231, 28 March 1903, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert