COURT OF APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 257, 24 July 1920, Page 11

COURT OF APPEAL

JUDGMENTS DELIVERED - HOTEL WORKERS' HOLIDAY Judgment was delivered yesterday in soveral cases recently heard by tlio Court oj Appeal. The ilrst case was that in which tno Court of Appeal was aslted to decide whether the Arbitration Court, in making an award for the Wellington Hotel workers, had the power to grant a whole holiday in each week where fewer than five persons, other than the occupier of the hotel and the members of lila or her family, were ordinarily employed.. Tho answer of the Court of Appeal wan thAt tho Arbitration Court had jurisdiction to make tho provision referred to except in so far as tho provision applied to night watchmen and night porters. k rat CASE. The Court announced its decision on a motion for special leave to appeal atrainst a judgment of Mr. Justice Sim. The appellant was Williamina Pope-Smith Carson and the caso cOncorned tlio estate of Isabella Fox, deceased. Tho testatrix left her estate to Thomas Henry Fox, for life, and thereafter to named persons. This was subject to legacies of £500, each to her sister, Mrs. Wu-' liamina l'ope-Smith Carson aud another sister. In her will the testatrix describedFox as her husband. Fox applied under the Family Protection Aot for an order inoreasing the benefits. conferred on iiira by the will, and in 1917 Mr. Justice Stringer raado an order in his'favour. The order had the effect of postponing payment of the two legacies during Fox's life. Two years later the appellant brought an action to liavo.tho ordor declared .void on tho ground that Fox waß not the husband of the testatrix. It then appeared that at the time of the marriage testatrix had a husband living. Mr. Justice Sim gave judgment for tho defendant on the ground that he was bound •t-'i lo ! )rdc J' mado by Mr. Justice Stringer, winch involved, a judicial determination that Fox was the .husband of the testatrix; No appeal was mado "within time" against- that judgment, but, as indicated above, a motion for special leave was evontually moved and upon it the Court yesterday made tho following' order: Leave to appeal granted| conditionally on the appellant on her part confirming payments hnretoforc ■ made under tho order complained of. No costs of this application allowed. to tho applicant. Costs to tho amount of £15 15s. allowed to tho respondent (Fox) as a condition, of this or- , r. if the respondent consents without lurthor proceedings to this proceeding beln™,V ea K |!d « M the appeal, and to ; a reversal, Bn tho, conditions stated, of the S r J 0 i npla , 1 , ned of no costs of the anpeal tq-ba allowed. EXEMPTION FROM RATING. That Canterbury College and Christ's ninW°f» re entltle d to tho exemption tliey ' rom Payment of rates upon the » cl 1" . thel , r respective boarding ?,irtJ2,?f me " ts R l and ' is 1,10 elect of the judgment given by tho Court in tho cases Md Ca rh°rL ß , orou A. v v Canterbury. College and Christchurch City v. Ohrlst's College.