Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

COURT OF APPEAL

A KAEORI MATTEE. Yesterday the First Division of the Court of Appeal heard argument in. tho caso of Andrew James Patcrson, of Northland, engineer, against tho Borough of Karori. Tho matter was one removed from tho Supreme Court by consent of both parties. The bench was occupied by the Chief Justice (Sir Eobert Stout), Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Sim, and Mr. Justice Stringer. . Mr. T. Young appeared for plaintiff, Mr. T. W. llislop for tho defendant council, and Mr. J. W. Salmond, K.O. (SolicitorGeneral) for the Attorney-General. The plaintiff claims to he a ratepayer on whom a special rato is levied by the defendant borough in respect of a special loan raised for tho construction of a tramway. He asks, in an oririnating summons, for a declaratory order determining, the construction of tho Tramways Act, 1908, and its application to tho moneys received for tho working of the Karori electric tramway, and defining his rights as such ratepayer upon the following questions :— (1) Must not the defendant borough apply tho moneys received from the working of the tramway in each year to the payment of tho cost of maintaining tho tramway in good repair and the other matters mentioned in tho Act; and In payment of interest and sinking fund in respect, of tho special loan raised for the construction of the tramway before transferring any surplus to any other account.' (2) Must not tho defendant borough expend Jill monoya received from the working, of the tramway for tho purposes specified in Section A and B of Clause 11 of the Act bcroro collecting tho special rate? (3) Whether tho defendant borough is entitled under tho Act to sot aside tho said sums, amounting to £5269 9s. 2d., as a replacement Imul whilst collecting the special rate (4) Has tlio defendant borough the power to transfer any part, or the moneys received from tho working of the tramway esecpt in accordance with Clause 11 of th* Rncond Schedule to tlio Tramways Art. um? The Court reserved its decision.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19170627.2.81

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3121, 27 June 1917, Page 9

Word count
Tapeke kupu
342

COURT OF APPEAL Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3121, 27 June 1917, Page 9

COURT OF APPEAL Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3121, 27 June 1917, Page 9

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert