THE LOCAL WINE QUESTION.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVIII, Issue 1060, 30 June 1910, Page 21

THE LOCAL WINE QUESTION.

RE-HEARING REFUSED. SEPARATE COURT OF APPEAL. The establishment of an Appellate Court in New Zealand, corresponding with the English Court of Appeal, was advocated by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the Supreme Court when giving his decision on an application by Mr. C- P. Skerrett, K.C., for a rehearing before the Full Court of the case of Miller v. Lamb. The action was an appeal by the Crown against a magistrate’s decision in a Masterton case, in which the point at issue was whether New Zealand wine could be legally produced and sold in a no-license district. His Honor gave judgment for the appellant.

In giving his decision on Tuesday on the application of the defendant’s counsel for a rehearing before the Full Court, His Honor said: “I have come to the conclusion that I ought not to withdraw my judgment and allow the case to be heard by the Full Court. I have found only ope case in the Dominion of a vintner in a nolicense district. This, therefore, is a special case affecting only one person and were I to grant what is asked I could not in any other case refuse either party a rehearing before a Full Court. Suppose a man were convicted in a criminal case, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment by a magistrate or justice of the peace, and I affirmed the sentence in this Court, I would be bound to follow the precedent established;, and .also -allow him a rehearing. I think, therefore, that it is clear that: I cannot allow what is asked.- A third reason is that I have no doubt of the correctness of the decision *. If I had, it would be my duty to refer the matter to the Full Court.”

Continuing, His Honor remarked, “This illustrates the need of what I have oftep. advocated of a separate Court of Appeal. If such a Court were established it could deal with the teases which now come before the Court of Appeal in addition to appeals l from magistrates’ decisions, and many other matters now dealt with by a judge alone.”

“I am convinced,” said His Honor, “that having our judges to sit three times a year in Wellington, a,nd to withdraw them from other work, must be unsuitable for us. We ought to have a Court of Appeal, as in England, doing nothing else but appellate work. I have been convinced of this for some time.”

Judgment was entered for the appellant.