APPEAL COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 193, 11 May 1920, Page 3

APPEAL COURT

RESERVED. JUDGMENTS ••■"• ■''•-*___ OWNERSHIP OF A PIECE OF LAND a The/Appeal'-'Court held a .sitting/yesterday morning for the purpose of delivering threo reserved judgments. On the bench were the .Chief- Justico (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Edwards and Mr: Justico Cooper." • H.M. the King v. Atyao, The first case-"dealt with;was an appeal by the Crown, 'the respondents being Alfred .Atyeo,. of Wilson's Koad, Linwoocl, a retired railway servant, and hi 3 wife, Emily'; Sarah iAtyeo. -Atyeo brouglr : an.action 'in\ the'Supreme.Court ... at Cliristchurch against the Crown, and , in his.,.6tatenient of claim alleged that in ; November, 1017, the Minister of Railways wrongfully'took possession' of a 6tnp of land in Linwood, occupied by him. He claimed to recover possession of the land and .-£5 mesne profits. For th-> Crown it was denied that thorn Wus any wrongful , possession'. The . Crown alleged that Atyeo was hot. the owM-r of the laud, and, that-in -November. 1917, he was not lawfully entitled to possession. Mr. Justico Herdman, who heard the case, held that Atyeo was entitled to the land and that tho Crown had occupied a small corner of tho land for many years without protest and by possession had, • no doubt, become entitled to it. The appeal was against this decision. In a lengthy judgment, in which it /was stated that! (the whole question Was one of fact, the Court allowed;the nppe.il with costs against tho respond- • eut. » At the hearing Sir John Salmond, K.C. ■' (Solicitor-General) and Mr. A. T. Donnelly '(Crown Solicitor, Cliristchurch), . argued the case for the Crown'. Mr. A. Fi Wright, of Christchurcb, appeared for th? respondent. H,M. the King v, Stone. / The respondent, Charles Joseph .was tried at the February sit- - tings of the Supreme Court at Auckland upon an indictment charging him .with having (1) stolen a watch from . the Thames Hotel; (2) stolen a watch; and (3) received a watch knowing ■ tho same to have' been dishonestly obtained. The jury returned the 'following verdict: "Not guilty on the fir9t and second counts; on the third count we fiad that the prisoner, received the wnrch but that he did 'not know that it was stolen at tho time he received it. We are agreed that he,' subsequently and before the detective visited him ras described in the evidence-, knew that the watch was stolen." Mr. Justics Chapman, in his statement, said that it appeared to him'that ho could int treat this as .a-verdict of receivinpr P terms of the third count of the verdict, as there was no ouestion as to. the date when' the watch was received, but that it might amount to a verdict, of stealing at some date subsequent to the date of tho receiving. His Honour reserved for the Court of Appeal the power to : amend the indictment as . it thought proper. The Chief Justice said, that the question involved, was .'whether the Appeal Court could amend an indictment. His' Honour held that it could, and was of opinion that the indictment should be amended, and a verdict of guilty r,er corded. Mr. Justice Cooper ■ agreed that ths Court could amend the indictment, though he held that the prisoner should not be found guilty but should . be granted a new trial. The 1 Chief Justice was prepared to agree to this. Mr. Justice Edwards held that the Court could not in the circumstances amend the judgment. What was suggested by the.appeal was that ,the ; Court should add a-new count altogether.. The "indictment could only 'be amended to bring it into conformity with the charge. His Honour, held that the ■prisoner should ;be -discharged. ■■■'•' •' ■ ' :The majority of the Court being in favour of a new trial, it was.ordered that tho prisoner come up for trial- at the next session of the Supreme-Court on the -new. count. - • ,-,- u -. At the hearing Mr. P. S." it. Macassey appeared, for the Crown, and Mr. A \ Moody for the respondent Donald v. M'Gann. , The ambiguity of a jury's verdict -wis involved in-this case, which was. an appeal by A. B. Donald, Ltd., the ■ respondents being Luke M'Gann and his wife Annio.Agatha M'Gann. % Tiie statement of claim as presented!' m the Supreme Court at Auckland 'set oat that on April 4, 1919, the company's servant, in. the course of his employment, so negligently and . unskilfully drove and managed a motor lorry in Qiuy Street, Auckland, that the vehicle was driven against and knocked down and dragged Annie Agatha M'Gann 'lis she was crossing the street, and caused nw severe personal injuries, She claimed £M general damages, and her hus- > ™?i med £K I,s - 8D(;<; i«I damages' ana £309 general damages. The defence was that there was no negligence pn tao part of the driver of the motorlorry; that *Mrs. M'Gann attempted to cross the street at a rapid pace without looking out for vehicles, and that wne.T sho saw the lorry she stopped in front of it, and so caused it to come iw -^"V" 11 ,rith ]lOT i '«"•■ tether, that if the plaintiffs had suffered anv ] damage the same was caused by pure «Mident -owing to the wet state of the road. The jury awarded Luke M'Gann , ±73' special damages and Xl5O general - a 3"™ am l G av e--Mrs. M'Gann ,£250. A. B. Donald, Ltd., applied for a rion- ■ suit, or, n,.-th« alternative, a new trial. i Jtis Honour refused the nonsuit, and dismissed the motion for a hew trial, holding that there was . reasonable evi■™°:i?, sup P° H the Jwr.V's finding, ' .The- Court held that the iudgment of 'Mr.- Justice Cooper should be set aside nnd a new trial ordered. '-. —- At tho hearing Mr. H. H. Ostler ap:V**™l /or: the'appellant, and Mr. J. «. Heed, Iv.C. (wirti him Mr. M. J. m, e ' for the respondents. ', Ma "•' COUrt at ' iourl,cd . t0 Saturday, , ' " <