APPEAL COURT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 144, 10 August 1911, Page 5

APPEAL COURT.

(Per Press Association.)

Wellington, August 9

In tho Appeal Court case Mcwhinncy v. Mowhinncy, Mr Justice Donniston delivered the judgment of tho Court, varying the order made by Sir Robert Stout, and giving legal custody of .the children to the appellant, but making the condition that until further order of the Supreme Court the boy shall he placed os a boarder in the Catholic school for hoys at Soatoun and the girl as a boarder at tho convent in Wellington, with access to the children by both the appellant (the father) and the respondent (the mother), as the governing authorities of the school think consistent with the discipline of schools and the interests of the children. No costs were allowed. Wellington, August 9. In tho case, Samson v. Aitchson, an appeal against a judgment foi damages for negligent driving of a motor-car, tho Appeal Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the owner, who was in the car but not driving, was in control. . Costs were given on the highest scale, and leave to appeal to the Privy Council granted. Wellington, August 9.

In tho case Donnelly v. Commissioner of Taxes, the Appeal Court, Sir Robert Stout dissenting, held that the right of occupation conferred on appellant by Airini Donnelly’s will was not a leasehold within the meaning of tho Land and Income Assessment Act On the other two questions involved they were unanimous that when land is leased in common by Europeans aild Maoris, a leasehold granted by such European to a European, in respect of the undivided interest of lessor, h not exempt from taxation, as being leasehold in Maori land, and that the agreement between appellant and trustees under his wife’s will did not constitute a leasehold under the Land and Income Assessment Act. Wellington, August 9. In the case Rex v. Reynolds and Petersen, the Court was unanimously of opinion that there should be a new trial, there being a substantial miscarriage of justice as the Crown was entitled to have the jury’s verdict upon the evidence adduced. 4he Court, Sir Robert Stout dissenting, considered that the prisoners should have a separate ?trial. 4 now trial was ordered, leaving the if they wish it, to apply for separate trials.