COURT OF APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2144, 9 May 1914, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL

1 BUDGET OF JUDGMENTS GIVEN j . J • ( i BIG OATS DEAL < ! WHERE JUDGE & JURY DIFFERED ; '.■ ■ ' i 'j An Invercargill case-of a somewhat ( nnusual nature was recently heard in 1 tho Court of Appeal; ' The-appellant J was John Batger, of. Invercargill, and , tho respondents Robertson and Son, j Auckland. Judgment in the case was 1 , delivered yesterday. . ■ In the Supremo Court action it had been set forth that Batger had bought ! a quantity of oats from Robertson and j Son, , who had . sent a number of sacks ' to the-Bluff, but Batger had sued him ' for alleged failure to deliver 1846 sacks, j for tho reason that he considered that ! that portion of tho whole was unsatis- j jlctory. Tho case was heard before a ' ipocial jury, which found in favour of Batger, holding that the latter was entitled to recover.£Bßß;, Notwithstand- , ing this finding, his Honour Sir Joshua Williams gave judgment for Robertson . find Sou. 'His Honour remarked that Batger had shipped tho oats for Eng- ■, land by the Star of Canada (which, by tho way, subsequently. became stranded at Gisborno, and, considerable loss resulted on tho oats shipment), and that not until four days after the vessel sailed had ho made ..any complaint, to Robertson and Son.or refused.to accept the oats. The oats when shipped, his I Honour added, had become the. property £ of Batger,'and we're, at. his risk when v tho Star of Canada : was stranded. _ . f Tho grounds relied on in,. appealing l against His Honours judgment were: s (1) His Honour's judgment was erron- o cous in fact "and law': (2) ;s'uch further v grounds as were disclosed by tho facts of, the case and the. judgment. i ■ r The caso on, appeal was 'heard by s their Honours the Chief Justice '(Sir a Robert Stout), Mr... Justice. Edwards, j and Mr. Justice Sin?. Mr. W. C. j , M'Gregor,' of Dunediii," appeared for tho fi appellant, and.Dr. H. I); Bamford for ; the respondent. t The judgment of tho Court .was read £ by Mr. Justico Edwards. His Honour said that; tho .Court found. that there had been a'complete appropriation in June, 1911, of the whole of the, goods, included' in" the '"contract : between tho 'appellant and.tho respondent. Their Honours obsorved that it had been contended by counsel for,tho appellant that' a • the ground upon which Sir Joshua Wile liams had based his judgment in the £ Supremo Court depended upon a find-, c ing by him of a fact which, was incon- t sistent with tho finding of the jury, ( • and ' which,' therefore, 'was not within s his power to/determine. Nevertheless, i in the view which the Court of Appeal took the facts it was- unnecessary l < fcs consider whether or not that was, f so. The appellant 'should have been' ( non-suited at tho trial in tho Supremo i Court, and tho judgment wouid be hir- ( ied-accordingly. Subject to this tho ap-' < peal was dismissed,', with costs ; on , tlj.j .j highest-scale as oil a case from a di£- , tance. : j ■ t—i THE CARLA'S CARGO OF COAL. .1 • V ! . ABREAifc icc' f J Mr. Justico Hosking read the judg-' : t ment of tho Couft in the-appeal caso t concerning the sale of tho coal cargo v ov the barquontine Carla, which ivas. 1 6lraiided near Wauganui in September,' 1: 1911:; Tho appeal was from a j j.lp/aient I delivered by his Honour the Chief. Jus-, C tice (Sir Robert Stout). The appellants I woro -A. Hatrick and Co., iitd., ord tie 1 respondents wero Redpatli and Son,, i and the Victoria Insurance Coy, Ltd. I (plaintiffs in tho Supreme Court).' p At tho original hearing Redpath and v Son had contended that Hatrick and f Co. had been their agents, and as such l had been directed to arrango' for tho t salvage of the Carla, but that, instead r of doing so, Hatrick and Co.. had c:\us- 1 cd the vesselvto bo sold, and themselves i bought the hull and cargo, afterwards \ Belling the latter. On the,other hand,- 1 Hatrick' and Co. denied that they' had \ been agents for Redpath W Son. Hie i judgment of'the Chief Justico had been in tavour of Redpath and Son, and it Was against this judgment that Hatrick and Co. appealed. At tho hearing of the appeal the appellants, besides contending that there - was no sufficient'evidence of conversion J by them, submitted that tho respondents were, by reason of their acts i and con- ( duct, estopped from recovering anything, and, in the opinion of the Court, they did so successfully. The Court con- ! sidered that thoro was . no proof-of i fraud as. alleged by tho respondents, "lie appeal was-allowed.' and judgment ■' given for defendant in the Court below (Hatrick and Co., Ltd.), with costs. At the hearing of • tho appeal tho Court - consisted of their Honours Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice • Edwards, Mr. Justico Sim, and Mr. Justice Hosking. Mr'. C. B. MoYison, K.C., with him Mr. Cooke, appeared for tho appellants, Hatrick and Co. The refipondents were represented by Messrs. W. C. Macaregor, of Dunedin, and AV. J. Treadwell, of AVangamii. CLAIM FOR INTEREST. FOUR JUDGMENTS READ. Four judgments were read in an appeal respecting an interest claim affecting two country litigants. The appellant was William Niello!, a Tainapo jeweller, and tho respondent was Thomas Agaug, a Niho Nilio farmer. Nichol's appeal was against a judgment given in March last by His Honour tho Chief Justico (Sir Robert Stout). In tlio"original action in tlio Supremo Court, Agang claimed from Nichol £238 7s. 7d., as interest at tlio rato of D per cent, on £1345 95,, the balance of the money payable in tho purchase of a leaso of a farm. Nichol's defence was that bo did not owo interest on tho balanco of tho purchase-money' because the arrangement was that lie was to pay £100 on account, and tlie balanco on tho completion of tho lease, and that this ho had done. Tho judgment of tho Chief Justico was a 'finding in favour of Agaiig for tho £238 7s. 7d. claimed, and*£3s 9s. Gil. cost's. ]Jor tho hearing of this appeal the. Bench consisted of Their Honours Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justico Edwards, Mr. Justico Sim, and Mr. justico Hosking. Mr. W. J. Treadwell, of M'anganui, appeared for the appellant, and Mr. C. F. D. Cook, of Marton, represented tho respondent. ' The decision of tho Court was that tho appeal should be dismissed, . with costs on the middle scale'. Mr. Justico Denniston read his judgment first. It was to the effect that tho appeal should bo dismissed, with costs. Mr. Justico Edwards said that if ho had sat alono ho would havo held that tho appellant had proved his case, but as three other Judges held otherwise ho was not prepared to dissent from them. Mr. Justico Sim considered that tho appeal could be disposed of on tho simple ground that tlio appellant had failed to prove the agreement alleged by him. Jlr. Justice Hosking's judgment, also, was against the appellant. QUESTION UNDER A WILL. STRANGE POSITION. The Court of Appeal heard argument in a case concerning the determination

of the rights of two Maoris'to the proceeds of the sale of a picce of land at Ohau. Tho land originally belonged to Me-' roph. Tima, a Maori woman who, some timo before her death, became of unsound mind, and Ropata Ranapiri (who was, in Native custom, her husband) Was appointed trustee in respect of her intorest in this land. _ In May, 1911, Ropata Ranapiri (acting as trustee) sold tho land for £1200. His roastin for selling tlio section was to provido an incomo for (ho maintenance and support of Meropa Tima, who required care and attention and was able to do very little or nothing for herself. In her will-, (made before tlio sale) Meropa Tima had bequeathed her interest in the property to Ropata Ranapiri, and his son,-Akuhata Ranapiri. After her death Ropata claimed that, .notwithstanding tho. sale of tho land, the proceeds of tho sale were in the nature ofk a realty and passed to him and his son under tho will. An originating summons was taken in the Supremo Court to decide this point. • Tho case in tho Supremo Court was heard by His Honour Sir. Justico Chapman, who decided against Ropata Ranapiri, remarking that,, when tho land was sold, it was gone just as if the owner had,converted it into money. "I regret," he added, "to have to come to this conclusion as it really defeats the last expressed wishes of the testatrix, biit'l cannot spe my way to any other." Ropata Ranapiri and his son appeared, yesterday in tho Court of Appeal as appellants against Hia, Honour's decision. Tlio respondent in the action is tho Public Trustee. Mr. C. H. Treadwell represented tho appellants, and Mr. J. W. Macdonald tho respondent. Judgment was reserved.