COURT OF APPEAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6487, 16 May 1899, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL.

THE JUDGE EDWARDS CASE. [Pee, Pbess Association.] WELLINGTON, May 16-. The Appeal Court delivered iis considered judgment this morning in the case relating to the filing of an affidavit attacking Judge Edwards. The Court held that nothing short of direct pecuniary interest, will disqualify a Juuge of the Supreme Court from adjudicating on a case. Alleged prejudice or bias not arising from direct pecuniary interest is no ground for disqualification. If a Juuge sjiows partiality the remedy lies in the only procedure recognised in England, namely, the removal of "the Judge* by the l^iieen, or a resolution by both Houses of Parliament. In the present case, the Court is of. opinion that Mr Jellicoe .has been guilty of contempt of Court and serious professional misconduct, with which, however, the Court could not deal on the present application. The affidavit -was ordered to be removed from, the file as scandalous and impertinent,but to be retained: by the Registrar until further order of the' Court, and Mr Jellicoe to personally pay ten guineas • costs. In the case of the Public Trustee v. Davy the Appeal Court allowed the claim of the plaintiff on behalf of Natives arainst the assurance fund under iue Land Transfer Act, with costs, the amount .of compensation to be assessed in further proceedings. : Argument in the case, Allan v. Morrison and others, was commenced in the Lourt of Appeal this .morning. This is m appeal from the decision of Mr Justice Denmston in a will case heard at Timaru. rhe plaintiff claims as the executor named in the will of the late S. T. Morrison, of Timaru, dated March 22, 1893. The deceased died on February- 5," 1897, and' the svill could not be found. The next of kin alleged that the will had been destroyed by the deceased himself, with the intention of revoking it. The plaintiff brought this action against the next of kin as defendants, alleging that the will was never revoked or destroyed, and claiming probate of the draft until the original will was found and brought into Court. Mr Justice Denniston found upon consideration of the whole of the evidence given and produced at the trial that although from the declarations of the testator and other circumstances, there were strong grounds ior expecting that the will would be found at death, his Honor was not morally convinced that the will had not been destroyed by the testator with • the intention of cancelling it. He therefore gave judgment for defendants. The plaintiff now appeals from, this decision. The appeal » being heard by Judges Williams, Conolly and Edwards, Messrs H. D. Bell and Kinnerney appearing for the appellant, and Sir R. Stout and Messrs Joynt and Raymond for the respondents.