APPEAL COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 193, 10 May 1919, Page 8

APPEAL COURT

QUESTION OF JURISDICTION

IN BIGAMY CASE

.Tudgments in five diU'erent cases were delivered in the Appeal Court yesterday. On the Bench were the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Chapman, Mr. Justice Si'in, and Mr. Jiistieo Hosking. In the case of Eex v. Walter Lauder, a question of jurisdiction in a bigamy case was involved. Lander was married to May Richardson at Aliaura, oil October !), 1912. He later enlisted with the New Zealand Expeditionary Force, and went abroad. In October, 1917, lie went through a form of marriage at St. Mary's Church, Codford, with Hilda ,May Bouse. At the trial of Lander in the Supreme Court, before Mr. Justice Edwards, the facts were admitted, and on the facts he was found guilty, but tlio question of the jurisdiction of the Court was reserved for argument before the Court of Appeal. Tho Chief Justice held iliac the question of territorial jurisdiction did not arise in the case. Lander was born in New Zealand, was in the service of the Government of New Zealand, and never ceased to bo under the jurisdiction of the New Zealand Government. His Honour was of opinion that the Court had jurisdiction, and that the conviction of Lander must be upheld. The other Judges were of opinion that the conviction should be quashed, basing their decisions on a judgment of the Privy Council iii the case of M'Leod v. the Attorney-General of New South Wales in 1881.

_ TJio conviction of Lander was accordingly quashed. \

At the lionriiip Sir John Salmond, K.C., appeared for the Crown, and IT. F. O'Leary for Lander.

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE.

T1" J-ho case of Rex v. Beauchamp U'alesby .the question of law involved was whether evidence objected to had been improperly admitted, and whether there should be a now trial. Walesby was fried before Mr. Justico Hosking in the Supreme Court in Auckland in February, 011 a charge of indecoiit assault on a lad nged 13 years. The majority of the Court deemed, that there should be a new trial. ■ At the hearing Sir John Salmond, ■K.C., appeared for tho Crown and Mr. A. Blair for Walesby: A LEGAL CONUNDRUM. In the case of . Rex v. Harold Maxwell Inrker. the latter was tried in December last at Wnngarui, before Mr. Justice Chapman, on three counts, viz., robbery with violence on Lewis Ileniy .Winwood; theft of J; 10 Ss. irom the person of Winwood, and assault on Winwood. The jury returned a verdict of guilty in respect of the third count, but with regard to the remainder of tho indictment tho jury failed to agree. After further consideration, (he jury informed the a n • ver( l' c ' was "guilty" on the third count, and on the rest of the indictment tho only conclusion it could arrive at was: "That, after-assault, under fear of further violence, Winwood handed over the money to the accused." Oij that finding His Honour took the responsibility of directing the jury 'to return a verdict, of guilty on those counts. I arker was sentenced lo six months ImprisonniGnt on the third count, and to fifteen months' imprisonment on the second count, but sentence on the first count was deferred pending the decision of the Appeal Court. J. no Court was asked to decide whether the verdict of-the jury was a-verdict of guilty on which sentence could properly bo passed. i The judgment of the Court was that tlio conviction on the first count must be quashed and the conviction on the second count confirmed. At the hearing, Mr. p. S. K. Maeassey appeared for the Crown and Mr. L. L'E liidwards for Parker.

• A MINING CASH. Decision was also given in n .mining case • from the West Coast ot the South Island, iho parlies being |Villmm John M'llrov, appellant, and John Nybcfg, respondent. ;lohii Nybprg sued M'llroy in the Warden's Court, Lireyniouth, to have a water-race at li i"'ii , forfeited on the grounds that tho water-race had been entirely unused tor its proper purpose, unoccupied, or. neglected over since the date of the license, nnd lliat no water had flowed ill tiio race since tho date of tho license. iho Warden dismissed the suit with costs, and against this decision (hero was an appeal to the Supremo Court beloro Mr. Justice Sim, who reversed' the decision of the Warden and made a decree of forfeiture with costs. The Anpeal Court was asked to reverse this judgment upon the grounds that it was erroneous in fact and in Inw. l ie Appeal Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court, and upheld (lie decision ot the Warden. ' At the Ilea ring, Sir John Findlay, K.C., wiHi him Mr. J. A. Murdoch, of Tlokitika, appeared- for M'llroy, and Mr. J. W. Haiman, of (..reymoutli, with him Mr. H. I'. OLeary, for Nyborg. LAND TAX VALUATION. In tile case of James M'Nab and others as trustees of'tho will of the late William 1 liiney, deceased, against tho Commissioner of Taxes, the anpeal was allowed, with 25 guineas costs. Tho ques-' tjon submitted for the considorntion of the Court was whether land (ax was to be assessed on the. unimproved value appearing in the valuation roll on March 31 preceding the year of taxation (in this caso March, 1919), nnd not upon a revision of that valuation made after Mjircii 31. out before the assessment of (lie tax. It was contended for tho appellant that lie taxation year was from April 1, 1918. in March 31, 1019, and the Order-in-Coim-cil which authorised a general revaluation was dalcd Septiynlier 22, 1917, and directed ,a revaluation of all the lands in (he valuation district to be made in 1918. in this case the revaluation was made subsequent, (o March 31, 1918, and the land tax assessment was niado on September 28, 1918. The tax for the. year 191819 was payable on all land possessed by a person oil March 31, preceding tho year for which tho tax, was payable, in tills case tho roll as at March 31, 1918, For the Crown it was contended that tho district valuation roll was a periodic roll, and not a permanent,'continuing thing. The time of valuation was the time at which the valuation was wanted and not Hip time at which Hip valuation was made. The revision of tho roll, whenever made, dated back to March 31. for that was the lime at which the valuation was wanted, and whtiii the new roll came i'llo operation. II was the roll that was current and not the valuation. At the hearing, Mr. C. 1\ Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. R. Kennedy, appeared for the appellants, and Sir John Sal-1 momi, K.C., for tho Commissioner of Taxes.