THE APPEAL COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2331, 3 November 1898, Page 17

THE APPEAL COURT.

WELLINGTON, October 26. The Appeal Court was engaged to-day in hearing Mr Walter Guthrie's appeal from the decision of Mr Justice Pennefather placing him on the list of contributories to the New Zealand Pine Company in respect to shares which he claimed were held in trust, and on which all the call.* had been paid in full by Guthrie and Co. Messrs Bell and Sim appear for the appellant and Mr Woodhouse for the respoident. Argument for the appellant was concluded this afternoon, and argument *or the respondent partly heard. The case will be resumed to-morrow morning. October 27. In the Appeal Court to-day, after further argument, the court reserved decision in the matter of the settlement of the list of contributories in the liquidation of the New Zealand Pine Company, in Avhich Mr Walter Outline appealed from the decision of Mi Justice Pennefather placing bis (Mr Outline's) name on the list of contributories in^ inspect of 924 shares standing in his ""name at the date of the winding-up. The case of the Bank of Australasia and Oldham v. the North German Insurance Company was partly argued this afternoon before the Chief Justice and Justices Denniston, Conolly, and Pennefathei. This is a motion for a non-suit removed by consent into the Court of Appeal. The action was one on two policies of insurance, but; a non-suit was asked for in respect only of the sum of £500 insuied by one policy. The grounds on which the nonsuit was asked foi were that the proposal signed by plaintiff (Oldham) contained two statements which were not true: First, that the property on which the building insured stood was leasehold, having 20 years to run ; and, secondly, that the slock in the building was insured with

,\

another company for £500, and that thflf truth of the statements contained in thq! proposal was made a condition of Ilia policy. Plaintiffs resist the non-suit on the grounds that although the deeds which, they produced at the trial for the purpose of proving an insurable interests showed less than 20 years to run from tho date of the proposal, there was nothing to show there were • not other leases nob produced, and that it was for the defendant to prove the untruth of the statemen contained in the proposal; and further that the stock in the building was insured, and the other stock was, in fact, insured in another office for £500, and there was nothing in the proposal to show that information was asked only as to stock in the building insured. Plaintiff (Oiunam) is the owner of a meat-canning establishment near Patea, in the Taranaki district, and the Bank of Australasia is joined as mortgagee. The building insured was the building in use for the purposes of Oldham's business. Messrs Hislop and Johnston are appearing for plaintiffs and Dr Findlay for defendant. Argument was not concluded when the courb rose this afternoon. / October 28. Argument in the appeal case of the Bank of Australasia and Oldham v. the North German Insurance Company was concluded. Judgment was reserved. Argument in the case of Clark v. Hopkins was begun in the Court of Appeal this afternoon. This is an appeal from the decision of Mr Justice Denniston. The action is one in which the respondent was plaintiff and the appellant was defendant, and in which the respondent claimed damages from the appellant for fouling a stream flowing past respondent's land by, the wool-scouring ami fellmongery operations carried on by the appellant above respondent's land, liespondent also claimed, an injunction against the continuance oJ the pollution. Appellant set up a pre« scriptive right to foul the stream in question, and also alleged acquiescence by the! armellant. Mr Justice Denniston found that the appellant had not during the 20 years before and up to the commencement of the action claimed to pollute tha stream "as of right," but that his words and conduct showed that .he had recognised that he was doing so by sufferance onl"- of the other riparian proprietors His Honor further found that the pollution' hau increased during recent years. His Honor also held that the defence of ac« quiescence had not been established. Ap-; pellant is appealing ' against the decision?' on each of these points. The case is being heard before the Chief Justice and Justices Conolly and Pennefatlier. Mr" Joynfc is appearing for appellant and Messrs Papprill and Meares for respondent/.. Argument ior the appellant had not concluded when the court rose. The case will be resumed on Monday*