APPEAL COURT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 119, 12 July 1911, Page 5

APPEAL COURT.

EDUCATION BOARD CASE. (Per Press Association.) Wellington, July 11. ia the Wanganui education Board case, Mr Bell, K.C., said that only in case of separate boys’ and girls’ schools could pupils 'below Standard 1!. be excluded and a separate infant school established. This could not be done with mixed schools. The Pjo,isions ot the Act made a district bigh school a public mixed school, am! consequently the Board could not exclude the pupils under Standard 11. Cm Solicitor-General adopted Mr Bell’s argument, and stated'that although the Board had the power prior to 1901 to establish any schools they liked under the present Act, tho Board could only establish (1) mixed schools; (2) separate boys’j (3) separate girls’; (4) separate infant ssnocls ; but the last-named only where there are separate boys ’anil girls’ schools. Mr Hutton, for the Wanganui Board, contended that the Board’s powers could not lie curtailed by the definition of mixed schools in the schedule, and that such a definition was not exhaustive nor compulsory, tie submitted that tho Board had a wide discretion. The Court reserved judgment. MASSEY v. NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Wellington, July 11. Mr W. Massey’s appeal against a judgment dismissing his application for a new trial or lus libel action against tho New Zealand Times, came before tho Appeal Court this afternoon. Mr IT. 1). Bell, K.C. (with him Messrs Grey and Fell), appeared for Hr Massey, and Mr Solomon, K.C. f’-vith nim Messrs Blair and Fair) for respondents. In the trial of the wise, the jury found that the figure m the cartoon represented Mr Has-:-ry, but that the cartoon was politic:'. 1 pure and simple, and not libol-

Mr 8011, K.C., in opening, laid stress upon tho fact that as sot cut m part of tho amended statement of claim there had been during the year 1910 published a scurrilous and improper pamphlet reflecting on the Premier. This had been admitted in the statement of defence, which, however, disclaimed any intention of suggesting Mr Massey as in any way responsible for the issue or publication of the pamphlet. Mr Bell contend'd that the cartoon charged Mr Massey with being concerned in the dis-

semination of the pamphlet, and so had been guilty of a mean and despicable act, and, further, was a liar. He said it was not denied that if Mr Massey had been Concerned ho would have been of a despicable act, md counsel contended the only meaning of the cartoon was that Mr Massey had been concerned. The Court adjourned till to-morrow. Wellington, July 12.

In tiie Appeal Court to-dav, in the Massey case, Mr Bell complained that Judge Chapman distinguished between ordinary libel and the cartoon, saying that if it was merely an ordinary political cartoon it was not necessarily a- libel, although they found a figure represented. He submitted that if ■i class was libelled, and an individual singled out and depicted as a member of such class, it was a libel on that individual. This had not been made clear to the jury, and therefore amounted to misdirection likely to mislead tho jury, and was ground for a new trial. He quoted authorities supporting his argument.