COURT SUMMARY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1435, 9 May 1912, Page 4

COURT SUMMARY.

IMPORTANT CASES ON APPEAL. Several reserved judgments were delivered by the Court of Appeal yesierdav morning. In the absence of tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) Mr. Justice Williams presided. Tho reading of the decisions occupied tho Court from 10.30 a.m. until alter mid-day, the business of tho criminal sessions standing over in the mctinlimc. The raising of money by premium bonds issued by the municipality of Paris constitutes .a lottery and the disposal of those premium bonds in New Zealand is a breach of tho Gaming Act. This is the ruling , of the l'ull Court, which yesterday affirmed tho conviction of tho International Investment Company, which was fined £5<3 by Dr. M*Arthur in February last for selling ono of these premium bonds. If a company in Now Zealand should assign part of its benefits in a floating or open policy issued by • Lloyd's underwriters in London, tho Court of Appeal holds that the business of insurance is being carried on by that company in New Zealand and that therefore Lloyd's underwriters or the company (as agent) must deposit ,£IO,OOO an required by the Foreign Insiiranco Companies' Deposits Act. Mr. Justice Sim had previously ruled that Dalgety end Co., Ltd., must j deposit ,£IO,OOO in these circumstances j and yesterday the appeal against this decision was dismissed.

The rights of an adopted child were defined in the case of the Public Trustee v. Filkingron. The testator of a will died without any children of his own, ,but was survived by an adopted daughter. Tho Court of Appeaf holds that the adopted daughter can claim that portion of the estate bequeathed to "all my children, or any child, who, being a. son or ."•tins, shnll attain the age. of twenty-one years, or, being a daughter or daughters, shall attain that ago or marry under that age, and if moro than one, in egual shares."

In the case of M'Kcan v. Brice—an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Sim awarding respondent -£7a commission on a sale of land—the Court considered the decision a correct one and dismissed the appeal. Publication of slander and publication, of libol were law points that, the Court of Appeal dealt with in the ease of Gini Angelini v. Carlo Antico. It was heldthat the Chief Justice had rightly decided that there was no evidence of publication of libel. The appeal was dismissed.