COURT OF APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 185, 25 April 1918, Page 8

COURT OF APPEAL

.SALVAGE OP A SHIP. In the Court of Appeal yesterday, before Their Honours Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Cooper, Mr. Justice Chap, man, and Mr. Justice Sim, argument was concluded in connection with the case in which the Union Steam Ship Company, Ltd., appealed from a decision of the Ciiicf Justico (Sir Jiobert Stout) awarding the company ,£IOOO for the salvage of a vessel wmch went on the rocks at the entrance to AVellington Harbour in. Juno last. The Union Company claimed .£BOOO on account of the services rendered hv the tug Terawhiti to the disabled vessel. . Mr. C P. Skerrett, K.C, with him Mr. P. Levi, appeared for the appellants, and Mr. Myers, with him Mr. L. L'E. Edwards, for tho respondents, the owners of tho shin. Mr. Myers continued his arguments, and at tho conclusion the Court reserved its decision. . COLQUHOUN V. CROSS. In.the case of Alexander Colquhoun, of Trentham Camp, soldier, appellant, and John Cross, farmer, Masterton, the appeal was from a decision of the Chief Justico (Sir Robert Stout). Tho case was one in which Cross was awarded .£IOOO by a jury at Masterton against Colquhoun, who, it was alleged, seduced his daughter. Leave was reserved at the trial to Mr. T. M. Wilted, who appeared for Colquhoun, to move for a nonsuit on the ground that tho girl's evidence was not corroborated as required by the Evidence Act. The Chief Justice decided against this contention, and it was from this judgment that the appeal now being heard was brought. My. M. Myers, instructed by Messrs. Wilford, Levi, and Jackson, appeared for the appellant Colquhoun, and Sir Jomi Findlay, K.C., witli him Mr. D. R. Hoggard, for tho respondent Cross. Mr. Myers reviewed the. evidence given at the Supreme Court hearing, and..held that the evidence which the Chief Juslice claimed amounted to corroboration was such as the Evidence) Act required in an action for seduction. Mr. Myera quoted legal authorities in support of his contention. Argument had not concluded when the Court rose at 'i.30 p.m.