COURT OF APPEAL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 6178, 9 April 1907, Page 2

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST SESSION OF THE YEAR

Tlio first session of tho Court of Appeal of tlio year was opened yesterday. His Honor Sir Robert Stout, Chin Justice, presided, and there were also prr.soiit their Honors Justices V> illiams. Denuistou. Chapman, and ButtonThis was the first occasion upon which Mr Justice Williams had appeared in the Full Court since his return to tlu* colony after his visit to the Old Conntrv. ‘ Mr Justice Button attended the Court of Appeal for the first time since his elevation to the Bench. Tho list | having been settled, as far as was possible, his Honor the- Chief Justice left tlio Bench, as the first case to be dealt with was an appeal from one of his own decisions. A QUESTION OF DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE. The first 1 case called on was that of tlio Trustees of the Horseshoe Hand Drainage Board v. the Trustees of the Sluggish River Land Drainage Board. Tho Court was constituted by their Honors Justices Williams (presiding), Donnistnn, Chapman, and Button. Mr Treadwell, of Wanganui, appeared for the appellants, and Mr C. P. Skorrott for the respondents. Mr Treadwell, in opening the case to the Court, said it was a matter which had originally conic before the Stipendiary Magistrate sitting at Palmerston North on a summons by the respondent Board to recover £95 Its fid, being half of tho sum of £l9l ss, from the appellant Board. Tho statement of claim was to recover this moiety in respect of what the respondent Board said was tho “maintenance” of a ditch running through certain country into which water from the areas controlled by both the Sluggish River Board and the Horseshoe Board was drained. There was an appeal from the Magistrate’s decision to the Chief Justice, and that appeal was dismissed, leave being .granted by Ids Honor to bring tho .matter before the Court of Appeal. Tho whole master in respect of such drains was regulated by the Land Drainage Amendment Act of 1898, and in pursuance of that statute a Commission was set up, presided over by the then Stipendiary Magistrate at Palmerston North, to inquire whether ono of those two Boards was to have the. exclusive control of tho drain, and if ono of them should havb that control, to determine what proportion of tho cost should bo borne 'by each. The Commissioner’s report was not in evidence; but tho proclamation which was made, under subsection 3 of section 4 of tho Act and was based upon the Commissioner’s report was, of course, in evidence. The proclamation which was sot out in the statement of tho case stated, that, “whereas under tho provisions of tho Land Drainage Act of 1898 a Commissioner was appointed, and an inquiry was duly held, with a view to determining wlmt amount should bo paid by tho Horseshoe Drainage Board to the Sluggish River Board for or towards tho cost of managing, repairing, maintaining, improving, or reconstructing certain drains or watercourses running through or situated within tho Sluggish River district, and whereas such Commissioner did report to the Governor after duo inquiry his opinion as to tho matters which ho was appointed to report upon,” his Excellency proclaimed that the drains referred to should, from and after the date of tho. proclamation, be under tho exclusive care, control, and management!.of tho Sluggish River Drainage Board; and his Exccllenev further directed that in future

the cost of maintaining and repairing the drain should bo provided and paid from time to time by the two local authorities in him proportion of onehalf each. That proclamation was made in August, 1901. For two or three years prior to that time, and up to'the time of making thcso_ alterations in ’tlio course of the drain—. which the appellant Board said were not "maintenance,” hut were in the nature of “improvements" —the two Boards had maintained the drain without having any trouble between themselves; and the respondent Board since August, 1001, had maintained the drain without any difficulty arising. The question for tho Court to consider now was whether what* the respondent Hoard had'done in regard to this matter was "maintenance” wilhin tho mhaning of tho Act and within the scope of the authority conferred upon tho Hoard hy the proclamation—or was what they had done something in the nature of "improvements” and beyond ‘‘maintenance’' and' for which tho respondent Hoard were not entitled to ask appellants to contribute part payment for nor to carry out under the authority of the proclamation. Their Honors, without calling upon Mr Skerrctt to address the Court on behalf of the respondent Hoard, unanimously agreed in tho dismissal of tho appeal, with costs on tho lowest scale, as from a distance. CTTJOrS POST OFFICE CASE. The Court consisting of their Honors Sir Robert Stout, C.J., and Justices Williams, Denniston, Chapman, and Button proceeded to hear argument in tho case of Hex v. William St. George. This >yas a Crown case reserved hy Mr Justice Denniston for tho opinion ot the Court of Appeal. Tho prisoner was a son of tho postmaster at Hokitika, and lived at the post office building, and although ho wps not in the employment of the Postal Department ho was indicted for having, "contrary to his duty,” opened a postal packet which was in tho Post Office and which was addressed by one Hdio Brown to tho "Spectator,” a paper published in Christchurch. Tho depositions showed that tho accused, who was only a lad, had been referred to by his initials in the local correspondence of the "Spectator,” and that on November ISth, 1006, ho obtained possession of a letter which had been posted to the editor of that paper. Ho opened the letter, took a copy of its contents, and re-posted it. Tho accused admitted tho charge, but the point was raised on his behalf that tho indictment did not disclose any offence in law. Acting under Mr Justice Don-

niston’s advice the accused lad formally pleaded guilty, and the question of whether tlio indictment did disclose an offoneo was reserved for the decision of the Court of Appeal. Tho point raised by tho accused was tliat as ho was not an official of the Post Office ha had not committed an offence, as section 90 of tlio “Post Olßco. Act, 1900,” only applied to post office officials. Air' H. D. Bell appeared for the. Crown; tho accused was not represented by counsel. Having heard Air Bell at considerable length their Honors reserved judgment. Tho Court then adjourned until 10.20 this morning.