COURT OF APPEAL.

Colonist, Volume XLVIII, Issue 11677, 12 July 1906, Page 4

COURT OF APPEAL.

Wellington, July 11. In the Court of Appeal to-day judgment was given in the ca3o of Jane Pliminer versus Trustees of the estate of the late John Plimmer. The plaintiff under a deed of separa* tion in 1874 had received an annuity of £150. Afterjihe date of agreement Mr Plimmer amassed considerable wealth, estimated at £38,000. The Chief Justice and Mr Justice Cooper had held that tbe covenant in the deed of separation did not preclude Mrs Plimmer from making application, and had awarded her £1000 out of the estate. From this decision the Trustees appealed. Mi Justice Edwards delivered the main judgment, to the effect that the Court had no power to grant a lump sum. The appeal was therefore allowed, and Mrs Plimmer, instead of .receiving a lump sum, was to be paid £100 a year from the date of the testator's death. The Chief Justice dissented, holding that th e Court had pbwev to grant a lump sum-. In the case of Rex versus Sear ley, the latter had been convicted in Wanganui under Section 412 of the Criminal Code Act of 1893 for alleging that he was a qualified medical practiitoner. The Chief Justice and Mr Justice Chapman thought the conviction should be quashed and no new trial ordered. Justices Edwards and Cooper agreed that the Conviction could not stand, but expressed the opinion that a new trial could be ordered. The result is that the conviction was quashed and no new trial is ordered. Searley was unable to find bail, and had served his sentence of three months in gaol, and had long since been discharged.