THE COURTS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1315, 13 May 1897, Page 33

THE COURTS.

COURT OF APPEAL.

The Appeal Court has reserved judgment in the case T. G. Maearfchy v. M; motion to reverse a decision in to “ tied houses.’’ The greater part qf the Quf last week was taken up in considering a motion for the reversion of a decision of Mr Justice Edwards in relation to a dispute, between Messrs B. Hewitt and Y. G. Hine and the Commissioner of Crown Lands in relation to a piece of property in the Marlborough district. Messrs Skerrett and Levi appeared to support the appeal, the Crown not being represented. The local Appeal Court on Thursday last reserved judgment in the ease of the Progress Mines Company,- Limited, v.. the Commissioner of Stamps, in which the former; represented by Mr Bell, contended that it was entitled to exemption from payment of an annual license fee under the Stamp Act. The Commissioner was represented by Mr Chapman. The sentence of “ penal servitude. ’ passed by the Chief Justice on ex-Detective Kirby was confirmed by the Appeal Court on Thursday. It was contended at the time that penal servitude having been abolished by section 7 of the Criminal Code Act, the sentence was illegal, but their Honors Justices Williams, Denniaton, Conolly and Edwards, who presided, ruled that as the offence had been committed before the passing of that Act the Chief Justice was justified in sentencing Kirby in the mariner stated. Mr Gully appeared on behalf of the Crown; A peculiar case occupied the attention of the Appeal Court last week. At the last criminal sessions of the Supreme Court a man named Dibb Ido was convicted on two counts for obtaining .£8 10s under false pretences and of fraud under an instrument of security. Ido got a bicycle from a Wellington firm, undertaking in writing to pay a deposit of £5 and £l7 10s in instalments He obtained the bicycle, and pawned it in Christchurch before he had paid even the deposit. Mr Wilford, appearing for Ido, contended that the prosecuting firm had merely a civil remedy. The Court decided that false pretences had been proved, because the bicycle was still the property of the prosecuting firm by virtue of the mortgage, although the latter was not a good investment under the Chattels Transfer Act. On a second point as to whether a statutory offence had been committed under the Chattels Transfer Act judgment was reserved. Mr Gully represented the Crown. The Appeal Court was engaged last week in hearing the case Wasteneys v. Wasteneys, an appeal from the decision of the Chief Justice setting aside a dead of settlement in favour of Lady Wasteneys. Mr Jeliicoeis appearing for the appellant, and the respondent is appearing on his own behalf.