COURT OF APPEAL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14580, 20 July 1909, Page 8

COURT OF APPEAL.

RAILWAY " BROKEN TIME." (Per Unitf.d Press Association.) WELLINGTON, July 19. Argument in the case Domls v. the Minister ol Railways was continued in the Court of Appeal to-day. This was nil originating summons tinder the Declaratory Judgments Act, removed lo the Court of Appeal by consent. Rlaintiff is a railway guard, who has served 14 years, interrupted by a break from April, 1899, to March, 1900. The classification list only credits him with eight years' service, and he claims to count tho fid' period. Mr Skerrelt, K.C., and Mr Ostler appeared for the plaintiff, and Professor Snlmond for the defendant-. Mr Skerrelt contended that there was nothing in " the Government Railways Superannuation Fund Act, 1902 " or in " The Government Railways Classification Act. 1901 " or any of tile amendments to either act showing that the Legislature did not intend the word " service " when used in those acts to include noncontinuous service. Sections 55 and 56 of " Tho Public Ser vice Classification and Superannuation Amendment Act, 1903," were passed under a mistaken assumption (hat service meant only continuous service, hut those sections had 110 effect in enacting the mistake of Hip Legislature as law. Mr Ostler also addressed the court, citing authorities to show that- the word " servicc M used in ihe act prima foote included non continuous service. Professor Salmond, on behalf of the defendant, admitted that the word " service " used in the act of Parliament prima facie included broken service, but- ho contended first, that there was sufficient indication of the intention of the Legislature in the acts of 1901 and 1902 and their amendments to show that continuous servicc only was to be counted, and secondly that even if Ibr.t was not so. the effect of sections 55 and 56 of tho act of 1908 was to enact that only continuous service should count. Mr Skerrelt replied, and (he court reserved judgment, adjourning till tomorrow morning, when the case of the District Land Registrar v. Snow will be taken.