APPEAL COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 576, 3 August 1909, Page 9

APPEAL COURT.

BROKEN RAILWAY SERVICE. j , DOES,IT COUNT FOR SUPERANNUA- • TION? ; Thedecision of the. Appeal Court is that :' . non-eontinuous service of employees in tho Railway Department shall not be allowed to count. in computing; superannuation allowances. ' - ... In:.order that.' an interpretation: of • tho • .. Btatutes bearing, on.-this might bo ■obtained/ a ease : was .brought - before tho Court vby John Dotids,. railway 'guard, who, ' had been in tho service s for; fourteen years, •but who had resigned and .been absent now ■ . sorviee' in the itoeparlmont, for eleven months. Argument was heard before their .Honours Justices • "Williams (Acting-Chief Justico), .. Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman, on Monday, July 19! Mr. C. P. Skerrett, Iv.C , and Mr. • Odfclerappeared-for plaintiff, and Professor •v. f^,Saliriohd 1 on/behalf.. of ; the"Minister ifor.Rail- . ways, ' Counsel for plaintiff stated that .the main •• . ; question; for tho Court to decide, was wlic--1 1 ther Section 17 of the Railways Suporanuua- /. Ji. j tion Fund Act of 1002 andtho' Amending Act or.l9oß,were sufficient .to show that tho Leg-. I islaturc; • contemplated non-continuous erni'' ■ ployment. with regard to superannuation.. Slcerrett) 'was'of opinion' th'at Sec- : • tion,l7 applied only to contributors: who had: left the- service .or had been suspended .by reductions after the coming into force of tho :•Act. .0f1902. The section ought not to

.prejudice, the claims of persons whoso cervifto.. was . anterior. •to the. passing of that -V: ■'V--.i i.A; v ' >:. \:■ -Professor Salmond,.in statins the case for- . • tho Minister for Railways, said that the . .grantiug>of ::tho' order asked, by .\tlio plain-, -itiff;would/itnposei'a .conßideiable.bUrdonupon; ; -y : \ the Railway /V Department. 'Superannuation Fund/'" The amount wast estimated at from, £12,000 to £15,000 per annum, and the hind ' was unable to bear this:burden. .1 ho result of-plaintiff's interpretation of tho Acts. be-. ; ing upheld would .be :<tho .prbmpt insolvency >• ... . qfi tho i trust fund. ■ He contended that - any; ■. . . interpretation which would hayo,'that effect '•/• 1 was . prima facie inadmissible."There w<!r<i ... two grounds on which 'that ... no ; such ;order should be made:' (lj In tlia interpretation of the original Act, contmu■".■'OUivßoirice; was:'.essential; (2) If, thati were not ißo'j Or if it woro: doubtful, tho:amcndmg V-TAbt^'of*l9o3 : had ,'rendered; continuous .sar- ' vico' necessary • now.,: If broken service ;co,Unted};lths scheme' of compulsory contribution provided by the Legislature would be ,■ get for nothing that for. which: the Legislature. had;;providcd lie should pay annual rc- , . duotions in his salary to obtain. •• -.The judgment /of the Appeal Court was . . . dMiverra;'yesterday/morning. : . .' His-Honour ':Mr.v:Ju£tice.''..'Willianls-?'Uid' S. tJiat .Section! 16 of, tho Act' clcarly showed ttat continuous service was contemplated.. •••', ..Scction 17 mado'a'special provision preserv-' ~ irig; tfic;rights of ; contributors' intho ■ event of-a, temporary stoppage of pay, thus iraply- •• , ing/that'if pay ceased and. the contributions 1 hh %■ r•; i ; rights.' JvSection >16 ■ was-' clearly 'an essential. ■ :!.,3rind.:'dpininaitt.:feature',. the. whole, scheme. . : Thft provision on : which the plaintiff relied . . had beeri pronounccd by. the House of Lords to 'bo incident.il merely Section 27 of tho Act.did hot alter.the The"annual 'H-'.-'f.:.'■-} classification list , under 'the ' Government •»v .Rnilwayi:'. Department': Classification Act,. 1901;. showed the length of servico of emplove<SJ, and whetbe? such servico was :: '"'' l .brokfii' , or;contmuouß ) '.but it could in no wav affect tho~ question as to whether broken •Dorvico-was.towrwasv- not; sufficient.! to.,entitlo. •a contributor to'the benefits given by the .Act of 1902. In the.:.'present.-, case, ,t' o plaintiff.', jApnl •.i7, ;1899,,. j having. then completed six»years; .and: two'-invpftths' .v~V- M>fTitS|.-;'Ho v ¥e]oinM' ; :tßeservico March; 1900, and on April 1, 1908, had cmn- ' pleted? a: further- eight -years' service. He ■ v was therefore already, m . -the on • • - . Jamiary. 1,-.-1903,-'. th v:oni>:,which . the V; !.Goverorhent ; J'und .Contributions Act came into' operation.- If the" word 3 "length of-.BorvicQ'',in Section 14 ■ • .moant continuous , snrvioo -,m, the caso ■ «.fMrvices rendered after tho ! passing ' thiv Act. . 'there .was jnoVreas6n ;, wliy"Tthey should VMt^arvtlio.same 1 sorj-' : vices .rendered before tho passing of tho Act.;.?. Apart from-, the, speciftl rmhta. him-tinder Scction SC'of. tho ;Public- Service i .'■•3l ClissificatioiVr'and ' vt Super^niJatipnAmend-: ;.v,'^".:;''-n^ißt : 'Act; :: the y : plaintiff ; 'Woiild;:hore''':io ~ . -rightvin respect of tbe. period of servieo be- -. . for>>.bis resircK.ition in April, 1599. : :■ PrtfsMor Salrsond remarked that no order for e«*h hid been m-vdr i -HisiHonour Mr. 'Justicp Williams said 'hat: ' ■ .in a /.class- or-,: representative action ~- whoro '.'" ; jthe. obtaining of judgment was-in the in- :- . '• tere's.ts of the Crown, it was usual for tho Crown .to nay tho costs .'of both parties. 'Tho -Hii+' if, flirl ilnf, : 'onn'<iiVlAr 'flint"'tbW a r.nso'

r-' costs.'i- ; _v -X ■■■.-. 1, RIVER KROSION. A PALMERSTON PROPERTY CASE. '■■:X ■ r •.AU I v;..ui>l>ciU.:. troni . .i'aliherswni '-. con- \ ceniingv; iiiu • 'erosion 'oi - 'iaud by' ' i • tiiS' : 'iijauaivai,u v lvivcr was 'hearu . oy t'no Uouri. . 'Vwuiams, • iJeiinisum, .tui- •/.wards,, i,'oopi;r, arid iMpinau;,_.6n/.Juiy;- ay.; n.> ' 'iiio/iattk,\i\s --b't-riugiiii'iiiit at. iim .iituii'iiig, ' '""'xl W«>i;a iSat l ; £'siii£' ix-uit«-fallow, liiimwy-Wi.u' j- ; • ■ bou'ud'oa/:by; ; 'tii6 : riyei',- .suuuivklml' his pro- : '-•v- '■ ■'• : uiv jtSiona'i,'^lSSidr/u^sit;';';;it«• was ;?f bundf : &>'. iii;6.:%sue':ot, : '■:3v-:title, lliu.'rivei'viiad Vtoirdoifri'its. bank's and , ;■ gVaudaliy foawih'ja' considerable* way into Ilia . ; tbv ' showed; 1 >/-.:• ■ .ptfl ©' k ; bouii'Uary.; 6f■; th &>; : . ■''(':• ; fiyer ijjiiitasf&e^l^uiidaryiV ?;y /ft 1 iyE»oW^ii«Av;,x(crtificatus;; I r ; '- 4; ;otftitl^^ro?issaed"tft-jrilrift^ -.- this laiid.''bounded by tiie river - bank. ;.'- : . v' ■ 'bilaiicetfcettftiea^eV'w^ tr'ict ■liand liegistrarv iu •li/Uti'-for tlio 'land between' .- the : 'rivei\'n boundary., showii' on tiio rsub.divisional pkri, arid tho river bound;l!'. jv; ary. shoyn.on tho original jcerti&catoio^vtitleV': ©iynw ,'t» -deliver. lip .ihts/ balauce :; : ;'t-A fa 6 ! 5 iVuppii v; tlic f gi-aunds v tiiat ? ; :tKe':' "land.it;: referrkr.'to -v had;.-been-.wrongly.. in- • i (■yiiow'iyas:not entitled to"the'-land. 1 . i 'A motion] ' brpughfcSbyythe^RegistfOT-^m^ Cbuft . at; 1 atmerston North ' was' dismissed I ''"■ by/[ilr?;;Uustippj'&Kapxa'anjii^fKp^heldth<>'; .' ' I landiihoiyriHn'.itlio titlo,- > belonged/to the /defendant, notwithstanding 'that tho river had .'eaten it .away,- and that tile - I'iVcr boundary Was now part'of .'tna bed y./.of'itliejriyer.--jXhp.;Districtyijahd['Registrar' • ■ ■:' appealed from this decision'; , '- : •'.-■ Vi '': Mr C. P • Skerrett. K.C , and Mr. H. H Ostler appeared for tho and Mr. ' C.''Av-%ouglnian ; (l%hnerston. North) 'for the :-v;=^9'r6iipb''Adehta/;o , ramc-- : _3?<»i , co'"-;_SttOT*'*audy'vJolm." Lane).- V- "■ i'-;"-;. : !i v . His Honour Mr. Justieo Edwards,-in do--Jivei'ing "-tlie .judgment' -of -: the >Court/ ■ said i.. f. th'at::'tEe',fiasi).-(ianio .befo.re ithe.Court; upon' additional material and in a new manner, : entirely difi'irent from that in .which it was. presented to Mr. Justieo Cliapman.' It was Rdsaittfd to be an 1 appeal merely in form. I*''lßpl, ~i the' resppnddnt.' r Si]o\T ..'acquiesced ; ;in tho view, of the .officials of the Land 'Trans-fer-Department that tho strip of land m 1.. '■"" : "/'!qli&t^liVhad'^"l««6^ne'.^l^art , of the .river-bed, ' If he bad then thought lit to dispute this • . i-uliu^'^hfe.l-c'quid'.^havoj-.brought" ,:'\ before' tho Supreme, Court. In .the; deterr ~.y miil.'itiori of. such questions,, the Registrar '' ■ ncted '. : iii(licially, ministerially,': and . the re- ,) ppondent ,>Snow, having elected ; to , submit to - of ;.v.the' ; - priittarjr*',- .-"tVibdhal,''' , . could .not, so long as - thct ridjuclicrvtion-.re-luiti.H-d' uuimpeachwl '."bj.VpreceediiigsViiv : L tli6 . (irope) manner, claim to act :iri''.disregard : ;,that ; tho oertificste" of. title had • been issued in erron . ': srid the .Registrar was'entitled.,to have'it . . recalled > nnd-'corrected. : The .appeal : would thetefOre be allowedj and tho 5 respondent Snow ordered to deliver up the certihcato " of title to tho District Land Registrar for i fie. DUi'boses nf ""Teetion. The-appellant

would bo allowed his costs against tho rcspoudont Snow, in tho Court below, ten .guineas, and, in tho Appeal Court, on the middle* scalo, as from a distance. A SOLICITOR'S RIGHTS. , \

AS COUNSEL FOR GISBORNE MAORIS. / Judgment was delivered in the case o! 'William Douglas Lysnar, solicitor, of pisborne, v., Ahenata . 1 To Maire, and '- Tok« Rihara, heard by their Honours Justices Williams (Acting-Chief Justice), Deiuiiston, and Chapman. .The appeal had. reference to a decision of Mr. Justico Edwards, given at Gisbome. , Mr. L. T. Burnard (of Gisborne) apper.rcd for the appellant, and .Mr. T. W. Hislop for the respondents. ■ . At tho Supremo Court sitting," the plaintiffs (now respondents) alleged that the defendant (now appellant) in 1895. filed in tho {Validation Court an appearance' on plaintiff 3* behalf without', any -7authority-.,' -from thoiiv;;.that the. plaintiffs, in 1908, finding that some moneys..were due-.to them from ;tho salo. of lands, caused a notice of motion .to' bo filed in the Validation .Court asking for an; order . .directing tha t; the moneys should bo pqid tofthem;: that' the, de:\ feridant,- without any: authority.from them, 1 , appeared before the Validation; Court and , informed the Court that 7h07 was solicitor, for / - the •' plaintiffs and claimed to bo recognised as their solicitor,' because he had liled ,an. appearance for them in 1395, , and tho Court thereupon refused to' entertain tho application. The plaintiffs claimed the sum of £99, iu addition to an injunction. , Defendant had alleged that he had been expressly retained by thfr,,twp'.Natives Ho .appear- for them before the Validation Court; and' that he had"ever since acted for themjr'ivith-• their ' knowledge ; and consent; ithat costs !.wer<3,.still owing: to ; .him. :by tho, plaintiffs in respect to. their, retainer; that the.,defendant, had not been notifiod by tho plaintiffs of their desire to withdraw -'tho , retainer except so far as .tho motion.. in "jfche Validation Court was notice. Ho alleged, .further/i-tliaV his appearance. in the' Valida-: {tid'tV-^Cdurt'in February, 1908, Was not •'assolicitor for the. plaintiffs, but oil . his . -own -behalf j—and ; for .- the purpose of ..protecting .his, t cpsts.,,.. ..'--.i. -:7-;7/.", .7,, ; .' _\.V,,-77,7. ■, -.'-77! Mr. Justice Edwards had found ihat. the 'drfenijnnt was. not retained by tho twojilain'iitt3i;"aiid . that -ho■ had; appeare'd the iVal id a t'io ri Co Urt purporting' to aet ; as Solicitor!, for-^theni. < - He, granted an injunction to restrain ,tlie defendant from acting as the plaintiff's - solicitor,!'and . awarded : the plain-. tiffs. £25 .damages,'-,with costs amounting to £54 17s 6d ■ '•Tho;judgment- OHII3 Honour Mr. Justice 1 'Williams (whoso' opinions. woro : , supported by - Justices - -Denniston' and Chapman), was that- ; ,to; Tenablo. ; ,the,, respondentsto succeed .'tKejvmustV allege! and'-prove,' liot 'only that I the -appollant : had''no, authority to , represent them- in-liKe Validation Court, .. but 1 that - his : actiofi 1 in;'claiming - to: do' so was frandulcrit. 'of.-m'alicious. :{ !That; had not been alleged' in ■the statement. of claim'. It'was plain that Mr'. I Lysnaris-objeet was to protect what- ho .conceived ;to be- his right,.namely, -to ' bo paid'his costs but- : of- moneys which were: coming, to..Natives, whom. ho had previously, represented, -and as' to the greater number '• oUWHofn'.vtlifirel .Wjisl.riothißg to show that there had been any withdrawal of his origiua) ,retainer.. Mr.. Lysnar .might have ;bopit right or'wrong in .'asserting'-'such a claim, but in.' the abser.co of any allegation or proof of >fraud,or.malice his assertion, gave no cause of ; action, . The appeal ; would be .allowed, withi-cOsts. "/-iX 77-;77"V /77'- - THE KING'S ENGLISH IN MORI GAGES WHAT DOES "THE SAID SUM" MEAN ? i ? '-A' Feilding case, 1 William Jair.cs - Short versus Owen Sandilar.ds Tyennan, was heard before' Mr. Justice Williams, -Mr. Jusand. Mh Justice Edwards, on July 6.' - 'wai argued by Mr. - M.-' j ,Myers: and Mr.,-J;7GTahani (af r froilding), on -.behalf/.of -the and; b.y';.Mr.; 1 1 '.,, F.. Haggitt' (of: -Feilding)' 'for "the The ,whole question involved was as to the ;,ti'ue,. construction. to, : bo . placed/NbriVone' 'pa'r#i<snljir clause; in the -niemorahdu'm-.-iaf mortgage, given by -tho appeliant. ■ • .. . (-' C'S . Traversing tho facts the Acting-Chiei. Justice said tb^t;;'-in'Sl9os, : the rpsjioiidont purchased equity, yof, redemption in- ¥;'.tp;.operty ; -suji]ect t-o; a first"; -mortgage for ;^16(),£ r equity i'.Tyermah--.paitl-:Sb^i6i^jyit and;gave: him a sccoiul mdrtghgeCjtojrsetiure £2370, -tho balance of the' .purcnaso money. , The;,principal secured by tth'6vfifat' ! smoHfeage payable 31, ; ;-J l 909;v: .Thoisccond mortgage .contained a 'by JTye'rman (tho- mortgagor) to. pay the;- principal; su'iti of £2370,.-, thereby .secured -oil;. ; :the- ;saab;idat<>. Another clause-read : "And,;it is that the.: l-sbaUi^ossisfe'.>&«A-Mi6rfc- ■ gagor to raise .'.such;; sum; ; ;.(n6t \ A exceeding '£1000),' as '-the in order to, pij.'-oS.-itiii said ; ;7prihcipal:77s\im hereby secured, and, in tho event.''of. its ; -bring i saTd; sum i at s &7r^if>interest i:ot exceeding 'fis.lp?.,^h';ccnt' , |K§. , M^um'i;''tliy' , 'tKo.Bortr gigeo will .extend the ; terpi. of this mortgage until March 31, 1911," etc. - s -: His~;.Honour thought .that ;tho, words,"the 'safdisum'V did 7?iot,v-refdr' to , tho ' principal ': sum ; sectired'-by- the mortgage, but to the , sum.,which',the ; : mortgagee -was ;to S assist : the -mor|gagpr,;to ; «ise.: She"wbrds^^--('in -order ; pay ;-pff::,thp:_ said i.prinoipril sum hereby - secured''"' only; to show the purpose' for- which sum :not exceeding • iIOUO' w'as'Hb 'ba 'raised. I 'Where a ''sum -tfas to,,be_raised ;_fbr.'ia'. particular, .purpose, and , there ivas a provision as. to . what was. to happen if it wore found impassible to raiso-tnc 'said' sunl,";th'o' words. 1 : "the : said,-'sum,v .'clea'rlj '■ref|erred' c ,to' ;thcr : puih'\Svhich'-'.waaV',t6'_:';lje""'jfaißea - for? tliat,, purpose. - Tho.^appeal should. there- : fore - bo alloived. ! Their- Honours Justices' ■; Edwards.-,, aiifl ■: Cooper concurred, in, this his : Honour.; Mr; -..3iistic^H-I>etthis^h''>^pld : Ctliof - '{llfe"■lappi!nl■■■'sh6Wd'■,be:''disJhiiised^.^•■:'::^!';i•■.LV.Vi'v■,•1appi!nl■■■'sh6Wd'■ , be:''disJhiiised^.^•■:' : :^!';i•■.LV.Vi'v■ , • ■- ;allowcd,^together,;;:with V aiipellant's^^;cost37^iu:;thevLpTO ; ";Gourt,:' aiitl .' th6fAi)pcal:,Cdb.rt-:'(ori'jfche'i : ioWe'st' : 's(i'J^^ i -from . vV