COURT OF APPEAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12555, 22 April 1904, Page 6

COURT OF APPEAL.

[BY TELEGRAPH.— ASSOCIATION.] Wellington, Thursday. The Appeal Court gave judgment to-day in Riddiford v. the Borough of Hutt, which » of interest as bearing on the vexed question of street widening. The majority of the Court held' that the owner of land on subdividing it for sale is not bound to dedicate land for widening the street under the Public Works Act where allotments front''only, to the existing street, and the owner is not laying out new streets. In this case the owner had dedicated the land, and • claimed compensation from the borough, but the Court held that he was not entitled to compensation. The Chief Justice dissented, considering the owner was bound to dedicate, and entitled to compensation! * In the case King v. Hone Maaka Makomako, the Court held that the evidence on each charge was properly admissible in the •ther charges, and that therefore Mr. Justice Denniston was right in ordering all three counts to be tried together. The conviction was affirmed. In King v. Hills, the Court held that where an accused claims trial by jury the magistrate should expressly state so on the -depositions, but in the present case it sufficiently appeared that accused nad done so; also that there was nothing to prevent ? person claiming trial by jury and then pleading guilty in order to secure senf tence by 'a :• judge of the Supreme Court, instead of by." r. magistrate.