COURT OF APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3079, 9 May 1917, Page 11

COURT OF APPEAL

JUDGMENTS DELIVERED THE M'NAMARA CASE The Courb of 'Appeal continued its session yesterday, when three judgments ircro delivered^ A TECHNICAI. LAW POINT. The Court gave its opinion upon a case reserved by the Chief Justice. The statement of tlio case sot forth that iu the Supreme Court Thonias M'Namara was tried upon a charge of attempting to commit ail unnatural oflienco upon a boy. During the hearing of the case the Crorni tendered a constable as a witness, and the Crown Prosecutor asked if any complaint was mado by the boy on whom the act was alleged to havo been attempted, and the nature of the complaint. This evidence was objected to by counsel for tho prisoner, who submitted that Eiich evidence was admissiblo only in certain cases of assault on females. Tfyo Chief Justice admitted the evidence of the fact that a. complaint was raadcj but not the nature of tho complaint, but said he would reservo the question for tho consideration of the Court of Appeal. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and His Honour sentenced tho accused to five years' imprisonment, and declared him to be an habitual criminal. The Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, and their Honours Mr. Justice Donnjeton, Mr. Justice Cooper, and Mr. Justice Chapman, beforo whbm the csiso was argued, .unanimously held that M'Namara's conviction should be affirmed. At.tlio hearing 1 , the Solicitor-General, Mr. J. W. Salmond, K. 0., appeared for the Crown, and Mr. H. F. O'Learj for the prisoner. NATIVES' FARMING TRANSACTION Tho Ohio! Justice, Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justico Cooper, and- Mr. Justice Hosking delivered judgment upon an appeal by B.upuha To Hianga, against whom Mr. Justice- Chapman had given judgment in tho Supromo Uourfc. . . The case was a claim brought oy Murray, Roberts, and . Co., Ltd., against the present appellant for £1284 4s. lid!, boing money advanced to Tβ Hianga, money paid on his account, and.outer items;of ml account bucq as commonly arise between a farmer and a stock and station agent. It was alleged that another Native, Joseph llawliira Paku, was in partnership with To Hianga, and he was joined as a defendant. . 'As Paku had become banknipt, thn Official 'Assignee was also joined. It was olaimed that the two irst-named defendants, To Hianga and Paku, had engaged in business as sheep-farmers,, and had subsequently, extended their business to include tfcat of motor-car drivers, carriers, and mail contractors in Hawko's Bay. Te Hiaiiga's dofonce consisted of a general, denial of tlio -plaintiff Arm's allegations, and in a statement that he was. unaware of any advances having been mado to Paku. Tha latter admitted that advances in connection with the motor business were made to both defendants, but denied any partnership with Tβ Hianga. in the sheep-famine business. Ho admitted that in bis dealings with the plaintiff firm he acted as agent for Te Hianga, and all moneys and goods delivered _ to Mm by the plaintiff firm were either delivered to Te-Hianparor used as directed by the latter. His Honour found that To Hianga waR liable for the wholo debt, with interest at per cent. The Court slightly varied Mr., Justico Chapman's judgment by referring fbe pr six items in: the accounts ' (items amounting to about £230)'t0 , the registrar for inquiry as to whether Tβ Hianga hpd the benefit of them nr sot. ■ .Mr. T.-M. Wilford appeared for the appellant,,and JM-. M. Myers and Mr. Currip. (Napier) for tho respondent. . CI3BORNE SETTLER'S LEASE, The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Cooper, and Mr. Justice Chapman, delivered judgment upon tho undermentioned questions, which were raised in an originating summons issued in the Supreme Court by the Honourable Hugh St. Leger, of Gisborne, farmer:—- • (1) Where a lease-of a small grazing run was granted under the provisions of the Land Act, 1892, to the plaintiff, do tho provisions of Section 28 of the Land Laws Amendment Act, 1912, .ipply to the provisions relating to renewal contained in such lease? (2) Are tho plaintiff's rights in regard to the renewal of suph leass to be' ascertained by reference to the provisions of the' . Land Act, 1892, and its amendments, or by reference to the provisions of the Land Act, 1908, and its amendments? (3) Whichever set of statutory provisions defines the plaintiff's right of renewal,, has he the right, or has tho Land. Board | the .right, to determine the rental'of the. renewed terra "at a rent equal to not less than two mid a half per cent, of the value of the fee simple as fixed, less the value of improvements, by the valuation?" (4) In the event of the plaintiff not agreeing to valuations made under the statutory provisions, has he then the Tight to have the rent determined •by arbitration? ■ The Court'answered the questions as follow:— ■ (i) No. v ' i; (2) The plaintiff's richts are governed by the Land Act, 1892. (3) The lessee, and not the Land Board, has the right to determine the rental at not less than 2| per cent. (4) Yes. ■ ' : - Mr.-C, P. Skerrett. K.C., .and'.Mr.It.. Kennedy, appeared for the-plaintiff, : and Mr. J.' W. Salmond, K.C., for tbe defendants, who were -the Napier Commissioner of Crown Lands and the Attorney-General.