COURT OF APPEAL

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19624, 19 October 1933, Page 6

COURT OF APPEAL

JUDGMENTS DELIVERED. Br Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON. October 18. The Court of Appeal sat this morning to deliver judgments. In Rex v. Browning, Auckland, a case heard on October 4. application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from conviction was refused. In Doo V. Bhana (heard October 9>, a Commission to take evidence in China was granted upon condition that security for flso to cover respondent's costs is given within three months. The Court held that the discretion of the trial Judge had not been exercised on the right principle, but that as the appeal had succeeded only in part, full costs would not be allowed. In Bryant and May. Bell and Co. v. The Commissioner of Taxes (heard September 261. the Court held that the deduction of interest from the assessable income of the appellant company was expressly prohibited by Section 30 1 2) of the Land and Income Tax Act, 1933. and that as the companies were not entitled to special exemption, as were individuals. Judgment should be for the respondent. The appeal was dismissed with costs on the middle scale. In the Solicitor-General v Bydder (heard on September 19 and 201, the Court held that the gift in the will upon trust as to "trustees shall in their absolute and unfettered discretion expend In gifts to be employed In the service of my Lord and Master, and for relieving any pious persons In need." was a good charm ’e trust, and not void for uncertainty, the trustees to submit a cheme for distribution to the Court below. In Preston v. Public Trustee (heard September 18), the Court dismissed both application am. the cross application for relief under the Family Protects Act No costs were allowed In the Toyes v. Smith (heard September 28i. the Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sir Michael Myers, who : the Court could r.ot see how it could t: said that plalr.tllT had lost the permanent use of the injured eye. The questlo for the opinion of the Court was therefore answered in the negative His Honour pointed out that this did not mean that plaintl-f was not entitle to compensation for the injury which he received, but th-.» the ques* - s one for the Court below.