UNSUCCESSFUL APPEALS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14209, 4 November 1909, Page 5

UNSUCCESSFUL APPEALS.

NORTON V. STRINGER.

[BY TELEGRAPH.— ASSOCIATION.]

Wellington-, Wednesday. Dealing with the first count on which a new trial was asked for in the matter of Norton (proprietor of a newspaper cabled Truth), v. Stringer (Crown Prosecutor at Christchurch) • the Court of Appeal said the. jury were .allowed to retire with a copy .of the paper without opposition, and had a right to look at the whole of it. What more effectual antidote could defendant ask than the production of the paper itself? On the ground of misdirection by the judg'e there was no reason to think, that the jury was not properly directed. As to excessive damages, the Court pointed out that" if the charges were true plaintiff would have promptly been dismissed from his post and be .liable to be struck off the rolls. The writer of the article expressly said it was meant .to be as insisting as possible. No apology was ever offered. The question of damages was especially for the jury, and there was no reason in this case to 6et their verdict aside.

Costs were given against appellant on the highest scale, and as from a distance. Leave was given to appeal to the Privy Council upon the usual terms as to finding security, and stay of execution was ordered, subject to appellant finding due security for appeal

In the case of Reynolds v. the AttorneyGeneral the Court held that the board set up to inquire into charges of misconduct against appellant was a judicial tribunal, and . could be controlled by , the Court. Mr. Justice Cooper's judgment in this respect was reversed. The Court, however, considered the proceedings were taken too late, as the board was not now in existence, and, on this ground, the appea.l must be dismissed; but plaintiff had his redress, that the board's award could not bind him and could not be used to justify his dismissal, which might be shown. to be wrongful in an action foi damages. In the caec of the Minister for Customs ,\ McParl.ind, Mr. Justice Williams, Act-ing-Chief Justice, in delivering judgment, stated that he agreed with the decision ot the learned judge in the Court below, and was content to rest his-judgment upon, the reasons there given. The Beer Duty Act was.mainly » revenue Act. The group.of the sections to which section 17 belonged was headed " Imposition of duty and mode of payment," and unless the words of that section were absolutely clear they ought not to be construed to extend to sales of beer upon which duty had been paid by persons who had a license which authorised them to sell beer any way and in any quantity, and who had nothing to do with the manufacture of beer or payment of duty on it. " Beer in bulk "in section 17 could only mean beer in original casks coining from the brewery, to which by section 16 it was the duty of the brewer to affix stamps. Reference to previous legislation did not. help the matter. In His Honor's opinion the appeal ought to be dismissed. Judges Denniston and Edwards delivered separate concurring judgments, and. the appeal was dismissed, with costs on the middle scale.