APPEAL COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7700, 8 May 1903, Page 3

APPEAL COURT.

[Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, May 8. Another judgment ha-s been delivered! by the' Appeal Court affecting the interpretation of the provisions of the Public Works Act Amendment Act, 1900, referring, to the dedication of land foT street-widening purposes on the subdivision of land for sale in the case of a transfer to Goulter. The, Court was unanimously of opinion that the provisions of the above Act do not apply where the owner of land cuts one piece off and sells it and retains the rest, and there is nothing to show that there is any intention on his part of selling the rest or any part of it. The transfer was, therefore, ordered to be registered, and the costs of both parties were ordered to be paid out of the assurance fund. In the Appeal Court, in Duncan' and others v. the Mayor of Lower Hutt, the Court unanimously held that where land was subdivided into allotments for sale, and any of such allotments has frontages to more'than one street, a strip along each frontage must be dedicated, so as to give the required width to each street, and that Section. 21 of the Act of 1900 is not com-' plied' with where only one of two- or more streets on which an allotment abuts has the width required by the Act. Mr Justice Edwards expressed the opinion that no street can be laid out by private persons in any case without the consent of a Borough Council, and that the case might have been decided in favour of the respondent Corporation on that ground alone. On thisi view, a borough council is never bound to accept dedication with the liability involved of paying compensation. The appeal, which was from the decision of the Chief Justice, was dismissed, with costs on the lowest scale.