COURT OF APPEAL.

Otago Witness, Issue 3672, 29 July 1924, Page 22

COURT OF APPEAL.

WAIRAKEI SHARES CASE. WELLINGTON, July 21. In the Appeal Court ease Cleave v. Grierson appellant has abandoned his appeal, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in favour of Mrs Grierson stands. The Court of Appeal considered the appeal of Arthur Cleave against M’Donald. >\t the hearing of the action at Auckland M’Donald, who had invested £3OOO in the Wairakei (Limited), obtained a verdict against Cleave for £2OOO as damages for misrepresentation by the latter’s nondisclosure of the fact he was making £26,000 out of the sale of the property to the Wairakei Company which was then being formed. Cleave appealed against this verdict. Mr M. Myers, K.C., who, with Mr Luxford, appeared for Cleave, contended that the jury had awarded damages on the wrong basis, inasmuch as the only damages suffered by the shareholders in the aggregate was £26,000, and M’Donald was entitled to his proportionate share of this amount. Mr Northcroft, for M’Donald, contended that the verdict of the jury should be upheld, and that it was open to it on the evidence before it to adopt the basis that it did for assessing the damages. July 22. The Appeal Court has reserved its decision in the case Cleave versus M’Donald. The court has adjourned till Thursday. July 24. The Court of Appeal gave judgment in the case Bolton v. Knight, an appeal from the decision of Mr Justice Salmond, in which he held that the occupier of land was liable for a continuing nuisance, the cause of which was created by a predecessor in title. The court upheld this decision, and dismissed the appeal. The court dismissed an originating summons issued by plaintiff in the case of M’Dougall versus Attorney-general, under the Declaratory Judgment Act, ISOB, the court holding that the Crown was not bound by that Statute. The question for the court was the interpretation of sections 12 anti 14 of the Public Service Expenditure Adjustment Act. 1821, and of the regulations under section 14. M’Dougall, a leading fitter in the railway service, contended that ho had not been paid tho scale increase of salary io which he was entitled. A preliminary poiut was taken when the case was opened "on July 14 by tho Attorney-general that ihe Declaratory Judgments Act, 1908, under which the proceedings were issued, could not be involved iri any matter in New Zealand in which the. Crown was to be bound. The Full Court has given its judgment in the case of Morris v. Morris, a case removed thereto by Mr Justice Salmond. This judgment if of great importance in divorce law. li was a defended petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The court found that the petitioner was sincerely willing, if necessary, to take his wife back, but did not sincerely desire her return, hoping rather that she would not return, and so would provide him with ground for a subsequent petition in divorce. The court bold that this was not “sin cerity” that the weight of authority, as well as public policy, required, and dismissed the petition with costs on the highest scale.