COURT OF APPEAL.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1367, 12 May 1898, Page 29

COURT OF APPEAL.

In the Court of Appeal last week, argument in the case Timaru Corporation v. Roaro and others occupied the whole of the day. Sir Koberb Stout, for the defendants, was followed by Mr James Hay on the saan side, after which Mr H. D. Bell replied for the plaintiffs. Judgment was reserved. Looseness of expression is to be avoided by counsel who appear before Mr Justice Dmniston. In the Court of Appeal on Monday Mr 801 l made a remark about the opinion of a bush lawyer. 4< Who is the bush lawyer here?'' was the immediate question from the presiding JucUe. "Mr So-and-so," replied ivlr Bell. "Is he a bush lawyer?" "He practises at Dannevirke." "Then you should have Baid a lawyer practising in the bush, not a bush lawyer." Mr Bell laughingly apologised, adding that he was not aware that the lattor term was known to His Honor. Mr Justice Denniston assured counsel, however, that hefully appreciated the significance of "bush lawyer," " sea lawyer" and other allied terms. Mr Justice Denniston romarked in the Court of Appeal on Monday that he could hear appeals from Magistrates in his district two or three days after they were entered. Mr H. D. Bell informed His Honor that such was by no means the case in Wellington. A somewhat novel preliminary point was raised on behalf of the appellants iii the case Auckland Corporation v. Speight, argued before the Court of Appeal on Friday. Mr Martin said that before he approached the subject matter of the appeal he wished to invite their Honors' attention to tha stata in which the proceedings came before tham The Corporation appealed to the (Supreme CJpurt from the decision of the Magistrate's Court. Mr Justice Conolly, who hoard the appealj'stafced in his judgment that in his opinion the case should bo decided in favour of the Corporation with costs; but in consequence of his considering that he had no jurisdiction, he bein? a policyholder with the department, he dismissed the appeal with costs. There was a full acquiescence by the parties to waive whatever disqualification might exist, and thereupon His Honor proceeded with the case. He (Mr Martin) submitted that His Honor's judgment must be treated by the present Court as i judgment in favour of the Corporation. Mr Justice Denniston, aftor some discussion, «aid the Court was unanimously of opinion that what came before them was the judgment formally recorded in the Court below—namely, judgment dismissing ths appeal from the Magistrate's Court.