LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2525, 28 July 1915, Page 4

LAW REPORTS

. SUPREME - —-ii EXAMINATION OF" MINE9C ■ ■ ■ • •• i : _, *' In tho.Supromo Court' yesterday,, tli'o Full. Bench decision.; was delivered in tho mattei:;pf tlio appeal by Alexander Pen.mtui, miiie. manager for tlio Taiipiri Collieries Company, Ltd., against his coti- ■ vietion for Saving failed to Lavo all parts of;Balpli's;.ininevat ;Huntly inspected daily, and .'that lie in consequence failed to. seo that tho working of tlio mine was carried'on with allieasonalilo'pro,visions for 'the safety of . tlio persons employed thereiu. ' » Mr. C.. P, Skqrrott, K.C., with him Mr. Tunks .(Auckland), appeared for the' appellant, whilo l the Solicitor-Gen-; era! (Mr. J. W. Salmond, K.C.), with, him Mr. H. ; Gillies (Crown Solicitor, Hamilton) appeared for the Crown. Thii Court held that an offence under . tho special rules had not been committed:'andftho appealivas allowed. As tlio matter' was in the nature! of a Departmental,'proceeding to ascertain the law ' on tho subjeet; ,no costs were allowed* AN iPPEAL' -DISMISSED.. Inutile Supreme Court yesterday, His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman delivered his reserved judgment ,on an appeal from the decision of,. Mr. W. G. Kiddell, 5.M.,-iii the case in which Charles A'. M'leanj wool-buyer, was tho 'plaintiff, and George Foreman, sheeptarmer, the defendant.; In the original action plaintiff claimed that the defendant, .'through' his agents, ■Messrs. Dalgety and Co., sold him hii clip at 9 3-sd. for fleeces and 4d. for •.locks. Thero were 74 bales of fleeces. The sale was effected, but delivery of 'tlio wool was refused/ and defendant sold 'his'wool through other channels at an increased price. Plaintiff being deprived ,'of the wool,-which he intended for tho .'-London market, claimed £197 7s. Bd., being the difference between the price Which was to have been paid by defendout, and the amount the wool, might reasonably liave been expected to realise -ill Loudon. For the defence ,it was contended that the whole question was iouo of urgency. On Juno 15 last the Magistrate delivered his reserved judgment; awarding the plaintiff (Charles A. M'Lean) tlio amount claimed, £197 7s. Sd., together with costs and witness's expenses totalling '£15 .. 2s. It was ngainst this decision that the defendant yesterday appealed. _ Mr. P. L. Hollings, of Masterton, appeared for the appellant (Foreman), while Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for tho respondent (M'Lean). The appeal was dismissed <ind tho judgment" of the Court' below affirmed, respondent being allowed 10 guineas l costs. . •