COURT OF APPEAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12328, 21 July 1903, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL.

[BY TKLKGBAPn.r-pEESS ASSOCIATION.]/ '; Wellington, Monday. In the case of Rex v. Stanley, the accused was convicted of incest with an adopted daughter of his wife, and the point was whether the adoption created the crime of incest. The Appeal ; Court confirmed the conviction, holding the Adoption of Children Act creates a relationship of parent and child for all purposes, civil and criminal. - :■: " ':-, ," : :'.'.■; ',■ '

In the Appeal Court, the conviction was quashed in the case of Rex v. Gray. In. this case the accused was charged with having attempted to dissuade aj witness from giving evidence in the previous criminal proceedings. The Chief Justice had directed the jury, if they thought that accused had attempted to dissuade the. witness in question from giving such evidence as would lead to conviction, they should convict. '■-■ The jury found accused guilty, and the Chief Justice reserved the case for the consideration of the ; Court of Appeal. The Chief' Justice now delivered the judgment of • the Court, quashing the-conviction on the ground of sub-section 1 of section 121 of the- Criminal Code Act, 1893, which applies only where the accused has persuaded, or attempted to persuade, a witness not to attend for the purpose, of giving evidence, or to.stand mute. The present case was one of attempting to pervert the course of justice within the meaning of sub-section 4 of section 121, but he had been convicted under sub-section 1 of the saro% section. The appeal would therefore be quashed. - - ) The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal in the case Ritchie V. Hall, in. which appellant claimed £118 for wages in connection with an accident, and Judge Con- j oily held he was entitled only to one week's ' wages in lieu of notice. ■; ' The case of Rex v. Badger was argued in the Court of Appeal to-day.: This is the case in which the accused, who is a Christchurch solicitor, was indicted for criminal libel on another solicitor practising in, Christchurch. He was convicted on the first count .of the (indictment. Certain points were, however, reserved by Mr. Justice Williams for consideration by the Court of Appeal, at the request •of counsel for the accused. Mr. Jellicoe appeared for the accused,; and Mr. Russell for the Crown. The libel with which the defendant is charged was contained in a letter written by him in January, last. . . This letter referred at length to the filing by another solicitor, some four or five years • ago, of a warrant to sue in the civil action of Thomas v. Badger. -. A copy of the warrant to sue was, by mistake, filed by the clerk of the solicitor referred to, in lieu of the original, the original being kept in'the office.. The letter of defendant referred to the matter as a case of forgery or quasi forgery, for which the solicitor referred to was primarily liable. The questions.i-eserved, by Mr. Justice Williams for consideration of the Court of Appeal were: (1) Whether .His Honor was right in striking out a certain portion of defendant's plea, on the ground of irrelevancy ; (2) whether His .Honor was right in excluding the evidence of what took "place at the hearing ■of the action, Thomas v. Badger; (3). whether the proceedings before the stipendiary magistrate and justice complied with section 50 of the Criminal Code Act Amendment Act, 1901; (4) whether His Honor was right in directing that the letter was not a privileged communication ; and (5) whether His Honor was right in ruling that there was no evidence in support of the pleas of justification. Counsel for the accused also contended at the trial that' the words of the letter in question were not in themselves, and in their natural sense, capable of a defamatory meaning. Mr. Justice Williams ruled against the accused on this point, and refused to reserve it for the Court of Appeal. Upon this point,"however, a motion is now being made for leave to appeal, the fiat of \ the Solicitor-General '• having been obtained under section 413 of the . Criminal Code. Mr. Jellicoe occupied the greater part of the day in addressing himself to the motion for leave of appeal on the last-mentioned ground.