APPEAL COURT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 73, Issue 449, 15 December 1930, Page 7

APPEAL COURT

THE STOREY CASE [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, Dec. 13. Judgment was delivered in the Appeal Court in the case of the King versus Storey. Judgment was to tho effect that there should bo a new trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court at Wellington. The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers), in his judgment, held that there was no distinction in New Zealand between negligence as a basis of civil liability and negligence as the foundation of criminal responsibility; further, some degree of negligence was required to be proved under both of the charges preferred against Storey, and also that contributory negligence was no defence to either charge. His Honour, however, held that notwithstanding the above findings, certain evidence which should have 1 eon admitted was excluded by him at the trial and that for that reason a new trial ought to be granted. Sir A. Herdman agreed with the Chief Justice’s view of the law of criminal negligence, also that the evidence excluded might possibly have been material from the point of view of the jury, and that, therefore, a new trial should be granted. Mr Justice Reed held that the answers of the jury to the questions were not sufficient to enable the Court to give judgment as on a special verdict. Furthermore, certain evidence excluded at the trial should have been admitted, and for these reasons a new trial should bo granted. The remaining members of the Bench were also in agreement tint a new trial was necessary. INGLEWOOD RATE CASE [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, Dec. 13. In the Appeal Court case the King v. Inglewood Borough Council, thu judgment prepared by Mr Justice Smith was delivered by Sir Michael Myers this morning. The judgment resulted partly in a verdict for the Council. The Court held (1) subject to the termination of the true scope of section 14 of the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act the Council had power under section 79 of the Rating Act, 1925, to enforce judgment for rates against land under the Land Transfer Act, in respect of which the rates were in arrear, in priority to the mortgage held by the Crown under the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act. to the extent to which the judgment comprised rates before the Crown acquired its charge; (2) after sale by the Crown of mor'gaged land under the power of sale contained in the mortgage the Council cannot enforce judgment for rates against land in respect of which the rates were in arrear to satisfy rates made after tho Crown, acquired its charge. The Aspro Case. In the case of Aspro, Ltd., V. ths Commissioner of Taxes, final leave to appeal to the Privy Council was granted.