THE COURT OF APPEAL.

Evening Star, Issue 3683, 11 December 1874, Page 2

THE COURT OF APPEAL.

[Bi Telegraph.] Hokitika and Greymouth Tramway Com- - pany v. Westland County Council.— This was an appeal from the Supreme Court, Nelson. An action had been tried between the parties* i resulting in a verdict for the plaintiffs, on whicli a rule absolute for an arrest of judgment was ' gained in banco from Mr Justice Richmond, present appeal was against that rule. Mr Justice Johnston said it was unnecessary • to review the grounds of the verdict or of the rule, for the Court was unanimously of opinion : that the contract entered into by the Westland i County Council to compensate the plaintiffs under certain contemplated contingencies was ultra vires, and, consequently, of no legal force. Ihe plaintiffs’ undertaking could no. be regarded as a work of public utility, according to the sense of the Act, being simply a matter of • private enterprise for pecuniary profit, as much i as a baker s shop, which undoubtedly might be •ailed a work of “ public utility.” it also was i very improbable that the General Government • would have endowed a body possessing such hunted powers as the Westland County Conncil, with such large powers of dealing with the future revenue as this contract implied. No : public body had the power of charging future revenue, and the authority conferred on the County Council was merely de anno in annum. Un these two ground? the contract must be declared void, and judgment must be for respondents. Appeal dismissed with costt. Receiver op Lano Revenue, Southland v the Queen ex parte Bell. -The question at issue was whether the relator, George Meredith Bell, ex parte, by whom the mandamus wag issued, applied for a certain block of land before the price was raised by an Order in Council to L 3 per acre. “ Mr Justice Richmond delivered judgment • The Court below had held that filling and signmg the written application for land constituted the complete application required by law Thig Court, however, was unanimously of opinion that personal appearance before the Waste i Dands Board was an imperative condition without fulfilment of which written application was altogether incomplete. The original written application, m fact, only conf rred the right of priority of audience on the personal appearance of the applicant before the Board, and not until then was there a complete application, of which the previous written application was a necessary but inchoate and incomplete part. Nor was the mere presence of the applicant at a meeting of the Board sufficient compliance with the reqmrements as to personal attendance, until big turn came in order, and his name be called out and his sealed application opened. Then and not before, was he present in the eye of the iv? and only then was his application comp .?• A his personal appearance took nlaca on the 10th July. The Order in Council raising the price of the land to L 3 per acre came into force on the earliest moment of that same day, and therefore the relator’s application wrb made after the price had been raised. The judgment of the Court below must therefore be reversed, with costs. Mr Buckley applied for leave to appeal to the Judical Committee of the Privy Council Ihe Court thought it clearly a case for such an appeal, the interests at stake being most« tensive. A sum of L2l 289 was involved in this case alone, and several others would b« ruled by the result of this. a Ex-parte O’Donoghue.— This was a mandamus calling on his Excellency to show cause why he should not affix his sign manual to a. certain petition A special case had been™ served by Mr Justice Chapman, who was of opmion that the mandamus could not go. ihe Court was unanimously of opinion that the mandamus could not go. The Court could not issue a mandate which it had no power to enferce. In this case it had no such power It obey the mS h j“ Exce i len .° y if he refused to ml 5 1 a “ and J I™UB. l ™ ÜB . and thus it would be merely brutumfnlmen to do so. The Governor gT any al process SS the Colony 0 f whlch he was (j oveniori The Maerewhenua Case. —Mr Justice Johnston announced that judgment would be delivered in the Maerewhenua gold mining case X th t n , ext , uttm S h y one of the three Judges who had taken part in arguments, and should be regarded as the decision of the Court Regina v . Dodd. -The following ire the reasons why the Court of Appeal arrested judgment in the matter of the Oneco case •_ J g Mr Justice Johnston said: The Court is unanhe supported. It is not necessary to decide whether a postponement should have been panted, as even though he (Dodd) be facie a British subject, jurisdiction to try the cSofScnl* t0 the Supreme ■he /aw of h'S&°7‘ i ?. ay be ““enable to nittefl mf n ” tted on foreign territory, and not cognisable hL * v “ tr .V e that we Admiral’s jurisdic tion applies to all parts of the high seas but that appheabiUty is limited to the nationality , be has no jurisdiction over a foreign subject. The legislature of England

iftve recognised the principle, that befo o British subjects can be tried for offences committed abroad, special legislation was necessarv. Our power is under the 12 and 13 Viet., c. 9fi, and reading it with 30 and 31 Viet., c. 124, it seem* to me that the latter Act is a further or enabling empowering Statute. There is also in this Act a restriction—namely, that if the British seaman belongs to foreign ship, he cannot be tried, and tribunals should not assert their powers to try for offences committed in Foreign States, unless that jurisdict : on is erpressed. lam therefore of opinion that judgment must be arrested.

Judge Chapman and Judge Richmond were unanimous in their concurrence.