COURT OF APPEAL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10630, 23 October 1896, Page 2

COURT OF APPEAL.

(Per United Fbess Association;) Wellington, October 22. The case of Jenkius v. the Corporation of Wellington is being argued to-dsy. This is a claim for compensation by ths owners of land in Wellington Under which the public drain, forming part of ths new drainage scheme system, has been constructed. The dtaia is a 2ft j sewer about 18ft below tho surface, and the i burface had not been in any way interfered with. Claimant alleges that the sewer makes the land le?s suitable for heavy buildings with possible cellarage uecuniaicdafcion, and generally makes the laud less Baieoble. The corporation contend that the Bluuiclp&l Corporations Act does not give aiiy right to compsusatioa iv such a case. The question arises on a case referred to the Supreme Coutt by the president of - tho Compensation Court and removed by cinsiSnt to 'the Court of Appeal. The questions referred to the court are whether thero is auy right to compensation, and if so on what principle should it be assessed. Mr Ollivier appears for, the claimtafc, and Mr 801 l for the corporation. The court intimated that it had no doubt the case was one for compensation, but would give a judgment in writing. The CnJwn case (reserved) Regina v. Kirby was argued. The indictment charged Kirby in the first count with accusing ami ill the slecoud count with threatening to accuse ojie HernUn of having committed an infarnoun crime, and thereby extorting money. The evidence (showed that Kirby informed Herman that he had a warrant agsiuet him for an infamous onme, that Herman would gat 10 years for it, and the Government would take his property, but that Kirby would make it light if Herman f gave him £300. The jury found that in fact there wss no eueh warrant in existence. The question reserved was whether the evidence showed that thcte ww» an accusation or a threat to accuse by Kirb?. The contention for prisoner being that there was no accusation or threat to accuse by him but only a falsa statement that some other parson had made an accusation, and that this was not the ofience charged. The question was also re- ■ eerrad as to She admissibiiity of a copy of Kirby's bank accauut under "The Bank arid Bankers' Act 1837." The, contention for the Vrisoner beicg that there was no evidence of identity between prisoner and the person m whose name ths account was kept. It appeared, however, that the items of account were identical with the cheques shown to have been drawn by prisoner. . Tho court unanimously ruled against counsel for tha prisoner on all the points, and affirmed the conviction. Sir s&> Stout and Mr JeUicoe were for the prisoner,, and Mr Bell for the Crown.