SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXIII, Issue 42, 26 February 1901, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

A salve that nevor fails to heal a :,ere gives instant relief, and draws oat all pois..-,, is a boon to all. Ask for Needliam'n Balvc, at (jits Uo-op ratjYe Society. J"ncs lis.—iuin

Satdkday, 23td EVbruaty,—Before Hisi Honor, to. Jua'.ifiO Co.ioHy. OMATA TOLL GATE. ; Mo: ds v.' Hooker. plaintiffappealed fio'.ia the decision of Mr. Stanford, S.M., who gavo judgment fir the defendant, holding (1) tbaf. the toll gate wi improperly. established, and (2) thai no proper cltaraDC3 toai'd was uiaint'iinpd at tha gat# as provided by "The Public Works Act, 1894." Mr. Mytrs (instructed by Mr. Koy) appeared for the appellant, and Mr. GovkU fttf the i e«p,o»detit.

Mr, Myois mid tiiere wsr« thioflj points raissd in the ease stated: (1) as to the establishment, (2) as to the clearance board, and (3) whether the lease to Morris was a valid one. With regard to the question of estab'ishmeat, be pointed out that the Magistrate's decision was certainly erroneous, as he had decided the point upon the assumption that the giite, as well as the tell, bad to be advertised. (B is Honor agreed with Mr, Myers,.starting that he was surprised to notice that the real point had not been decided.) Mr Mye r ß, proceeding, prgued that the resolution of 1889, that the gate be " oreot: d " for three years, could only r< f«r to the physical structure for which there was no necessity. Tolls could be calleeted without a g*te, as His Honor had already decided in the ca.e of the Attorney - General v. Hutt Ojunty Council. There had been no limit of time with regard to the scale of tolls in the resolution, or the aVver; ; semen% a.nd they had bien collected since 1889. He als:> contended that no formalities ware required with regard to the gate—only that the scab-) of tolls should ha advortised before b?coming first payable. It would be absurd to say that the legislature intended this should be done at the expiration of fcvery resolution of the Council With legird to the second point, he contended that the provision of the Act requiring the words " clears the gate " to be on the same board as the scale of tolls was directory on'y and. not mandatory. He cited a large number of cas s to support his argument.

His Honor hero interrupted counsel, remarking that he had no hesitation in saying that even if there had been si total non-compliance with tbe Section, it did not prevent the tell btdr.g recovered. At the most, the Council and the collector could only be liable to an action or penalty for breach of a statutory duty. The Magistrate's decision on this point was erroneous, With refereneo totho lease, H.s Honor ruled that there was nothing so far as : ".e could see from the case sfcttsd for the appellant to answer. Mr. Govett then addressed the Court., contending tint the gate had been established for nearly three years, ad there had been no resolution extending the lerm. Although the advertis. ment was to co'lect tolls in perpetuity, yet tine public were justified in going behind that and inspectiug the resolution of the Council. And further, although the scalo of tolls iu the resolution was not limited to three years, yet the erection of the gate wars and the two clauses in the resolution must be read together, and both the gato and the f cala of tolls expired at the e:id of throe years. The auks'quont resolutions for the letting of the gate ciull not be held to have extPiided the term of three years.' On the second point, counsel argued that the ehwrnnco *:oard was compulsory, a'.d cited Oiegsoo v. Pott sr to support this argument, It was imperative that she public should know of their rights, especially foreigner?. Any provision imposing a tax should be strictly construed.

His Honor remarked t'ant tbis prevision did not impose a tax--on tho contrary, it was a relief from a tax. Cow-sal then argued tli'tfc this clearance wes a modification in the scale o? tolls, and should have bean With regard to the lei,-o, i*s had riot been signed by the sureties until some few mouths n.jo, and wns, therefore, iiregular and barred the plaintiff from recovering. His Honor ruled that the lease w.is regular mid valid, but even if it wore no lesss at all, ho pointed, out that Morris was tho collector, and untried ns sueh to maintain his action, His Honor intimated to Mr. Myers that he might confine hi-< reply to tbe (iuestien of the threa years' establishment.

Counsel for tho app«lla,nt having briefly replied, His Honor rcsoi-ved judgment, asd said that he would probably deliver it before leaving hero.

Monday, February .25.—Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.

Milne v. Montgomerie.—This was an nation in winch the plaintiff claimed possession of a eeotion of land and defendant counter-claimed for specific perfoi mance of a contract to Ijii.se wish

purchasing clause.

Mr. Barton ■ppoarecl for tho plaintiff and Mr. Sanuie! for fcbo defendant, i The counter-claim was first hoard, .".nd Mr. Saimi'i! opcnrd h ; s casi>, but had not concluded when w wn-i intimated that tho parties to the action were desirous of couferriiij,; with a vww to a settlement. By loivo of His Honor tlio further heiriug wanadjourned, and after a chort conference Itie following t;:rms were arranged : Judgment to bo entered pro forma for the plaintiff on hia paying .£7O liy way of compensation to the cu'fendaufl, who undertook to delivpr up possession of tlio land by April 13th. , His Honor approved or the sstt'e-j ment and gava formal judgment accordingly. | PBS PHtKS ASSOCIATION.] ! Wanganui, February 25. ! Tho Supremo Court opened this' rooming before Judge Edwards, who referred to the seriousness of the charges on the calendar. Kef erring toj the indecent assault he said there] seemed to bo a crazo for this abomin-j able spcraes of crime over tho colony. [ Herbert Hodgson for breaking ar.dl i>atoi'int,', wati admitted to probatio •; J. j Newbury received two years for for-' ■f.i ry ; and Gtorga McDonald two years) for bvoaking and sneering. I Patrick Ijoaiiy was sentenced to two J years for indecent assault. I Ciutiivi'CiiiJK'jii, February 25. [ I«. ii»? Huaroß&Q Otsn.cn ike cusa Oau«

<ctbury Jockey Club -. Pitorsoo, claim fori!LOO for alleged trespass cm the Biccu'ton course, was commouC'd. Dofoadaatat laiit Nov<:>n'fier race nioetiiv,; pushed Im way on I') the course j i,!oe;n,'i'g his dororinionfcioß to viu-j o'io'.tn the right >m to the public to be pr s>Lton the ionise. Later. i Judgment was reserved in this caee. Dunedin, Febru»ry 25. At the Supreme Court in addition to finding no bill against Alexander Thorop.on charged with the murder of Gibb-', his shipmate on the Otaranic, th 9 Graud Jury also found no bill agiinsi James Ledingham who had been eom/niUed for trial on a charge of manslaughter in connection with the drowning f i one fa'f tIW dredge hands. Alfred Smith alius Morton, übarged with bouss breaking, was found not guilty.