ONEHUMA ZOO CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16851, 16 May 1918, Page 4

ONEHUMA ZOO CASE.

APPEAL TO PRIVY COUNCIL. ; CONDITIONAL LEAVE GRANTED. Judgment in an application for leave to 5 appeal to the Privy Council from the judgment of the Supreme Court, delivered on April 12 last, by. which a decision of a ": stipendiary magistrate at Auckland convicting ; the appellant. of an offence under section 59 of the Municipal Corporations Act was upheld, was delivered at the Supreme Court yesterday by Mr. Justice Hoskirig. The appellant was J*. J. Boyd, proprietor of the Zoological Gardens, pnehunga (Mr. Reed, K.C.), and the respondent H. O. Colby (Mr.- A. E! Skel- * ton). The motion for leave to appeal was made on two grounds—the magnitude on the interests affected and that the ques- „ -i tion involved was one of great general or public- importance. . . In his judgment, His Honor said that in ; j regard to the magnitude of the interests the' Court was not satisfied that this ■ r j ground could be entertained, inasmuch as '•?, the determination in the appellant's favour ~1 of the question involved-—which; '.-was ■•'? whether the appellant was rightly con- j victed or notwould not affect the by-law. \ % It was the by-law which threatened the lous, ' -1 and the byJaw would continue to operate >.% until repealed, a repeal which might never .'' ■;■% take place, whatever be the result of the J appeal to His Majesty-in-GounciL c j~ In relation to the ground of the great „""• general, or public importance, His Honor rJ said it had been submitted that the ques- v$ tion involved was whether the* enactment '■% referred to applied to a vote or discussion.?! on a " legislative matter as distinguished 'J from a judicial or administrative matter, '"'•?■ and doubtless it was* of great general im- ,-xs. portance if the distinction would make a . % r j difference in such a case as the present.' Vn But the determination of the question in ¥:■<-' the appellant's favour would not get rid - !": of the adverse by-law which must depend . ~~ 7 on the minds of the councillors for. thf W time being in office. ;'£ The appeal would not settle the real ,- contest, which was whether the Zoological - -"",. <?' -dens - ere to remain in the borough { o_ not. ' ; he Court was very doubtful if leave should be granted. The respondent ' . was not the council, and -.Id net represent i-.'-i*: it, but was a private householder not shown to be in an affluent position. In.< - the circumstances the Court was not prepared to grant leave except on special con- "?% ditions as to the costs of the appeal. These *§ were that the security, which the rules v-i>; governing appeals to His Majesty-in-Coun-cil required to be entered into, should ZH provide, among the other matters pre- , : J scribed, that, whatever the result of the 1 : ; appeal, and whether it be in favour of or *J-§ against the appellant, he should not claim J any oosto against the respondent, and that . ,'.-"; whether costs be, or be not, awarded to , {■ him, the appellant should bear his own § costs and should bear, to the extent of .. £200, the respondent's costs as between solicitor and client. If the appellant was */' willing to accept th*3 condition th» ■„,\j security should be for £250, and the time ; for entering into it two months from date. _> The appellant must in any event pay to the respondent £4 4s and costs of the .. % motion. ' %