SUPREME'COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 930, 24 September 1910, Page 23

SUPREME'COURT.

. COUNCIL AND CAS COMPANY. FEILDING CASE DECIDED. Tile Chief J'listico (Sir Robert . Stout) gavo his decision yesterday in tho ease of tho Feilding Borough Council v. the Feilding Gas Company. ' .This was ail originating summons under tho Declaratory Judgments Act, and certain questions were asked as to an. agreement made between tho plaintift' and tho defendants. ; This agree-, ment was as to' tho public lighting of tho town of Eeilding, and , his Honour pointed put in his judgment yesterday that it came before the Court of Appeal in 1908, wheii the. Court hold, in ■'.answer to questions put, that the agreement was valid. Tho question put was —"Is the said agreement of November. ,5,; 1896, valid or invalid in wholo or 111 part, and if in part only, then what part?" The Court of Appeal unanimouslyheld that tho agreement, was valid. -. * ' TJIO, question that was' now. put, his Honour continued, was ' whether paragraph 5 ;of the agreement was valid'.- In his opinion, the agreement having beeii 'bold valid as a whole by tho Court of Appeal, it was not open now for tho Supreme Court to. say that any part of. it was invalid. Tlie first question put, therefore, must be answered 111 the affirmative. ' . '.' As to the second question—whether tile Feilding Borough Council could establish electric .'lighting itself, the terms of ■ paragraph 0, ho thought, clearly showed that, tlie council could' do so." The .words ■of the paragraph ' were "that the corporation shall at any time during the continuance of this agreement .liave the right- to grant concessions to facilitate the Wntrodiiction. into and throughout the borough of electric lighting, or any other, system or method of ligliting.-.other than gas, without the corporation tioing in,any way prejudiced or Affected in consdqueilco of Such competing liiethod being , introduced; provided/.tli'at if tho said company are already billing to supply .and. niaintain v •such othei'csystem. or method of; light- ; ing 011 the same terms as another person ' or- company, then' preference shall bo': given to the said company.'' The second question, in' his opiri- ' ioiij must be answered in'.the -affirmativo, also. - \ ■ ;; / The :third ' question, was: ,"In the ; event of tho corporation obtaining an order authorising tho .construction of a tramway in the. borough 'and preseribing electricity as tho motive . power, .could it.in.delegating the authority conferred, by V,such .ordfer to any . person grant , the auxiliary right ;. to : supply •electricity-; for' lighting purposes, without ; giving • .the Gas Company-prefer-; ence?" On this' question his 'Honour .was of opinion. that tho Borough Council "must offer the electric lighting to tho: Gas Company without combining it with-the question' of an' electric tram-wu-y. ...v; ■;.; •; Mr. C. P. Skerrett,' K.C.',! with Mr. F." P. Kelly, appeared for the-Borough* Council, and Mr. Von Haast for the 1 Gas Company. A FAMILY MATTER. s INTERPRETATION OF A WILL, Questions relating to the will of the late Walter' Guy ,; of Motiioka, farmer, canio before the Chief Justice (Sir; Robert Stout) 011 an - originating : summons yesterday, in . Banco. The plaintill's 'ivere, John ■ Arlis Guy, of : Ngati-lfiot-i, farmer, and Elizabeth, Emily H. P. ; Kelling, of • Motuoka, married -woman/ trustees and executors of the .will.-. The defendant was Walter .-Alexander' Cochrane. Guy, of Ngatimoti, farmer. ; Mr., D. ;M. • Findlay appeared for deferidant, and. stated that lie had : inrsiriifetiotis -also :from the plaintiffs' soli- - citoiv Mr. T. F. Martin appeared for other'pel-sons interested. Tlie pciint at' issue was what , estates the, sons of John ;;ArlisGuy.iand to take .under the residuary deviso con-: stained in. the will. Judgment was: ror ! served.. : .