APPEAL COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 238, 16 October 1901, Page 2

APPEAL COURT.

TIIE TAIIOI\A BLOCK,

Special to Times.

Wellington, hist night. The Ttihora Block ease was reached j in the Court of Appeal this afternoon, but i did not get far on its way to conclusion. | llardlv had tho four .Judges comprising j the Court taken their seats when Mr Bell, j on behalf of the Bank of Xew Zealand, raised tiie point that the Court still had j not suflieiont material before it to adjudi- j cate on the question at issue. It was, he j said, being asked to determine un abstract | question, and counsel for the Bank con* j tended that the Court should have a con- i Crete ease before it. They agreed with I Mr Rees that in some cases the Valida- j tion Court had jurisdiction to continue j administering land after its decree, but in • other eases they agreed with the Judge j of ‘Le Validation Court that there was no ; such jurisdiction. The Bank objected to the general question being dealt with j j without particulars in regard to tho fuets iof the case being properly before the • Court, and ooniendeil that it would be : a dangerous thing that the Court should j deal with, and give judgment on a general i question which might be taken to apply to eases to which it was never intended it ; should apply, and for Bus reason the i actual facts of this particular ease should : bo supplied, and tile judgm -in could then deal witii that ease.

Mr Lees submit!" d that as a mallet' ef law it was for tiie Validation Gourt to forward the proceedings, and not a matter (or tiie parties, lie contended there v, as ample in the judgment oi' tiie Validation Gourt itself to show the question which had arisen, and that is was uniu er -saqv ant tiling more should be ohiaim d. !f, however. anything more was required there

| was no difficulty in getting, it. Tiie Court expressed the opinion that ii ought to have before it the .summons for removal of the caveat and decree. It ( won! I re.a rve t! v go vs.- ; win i her h on. At to lint e 0'.::..a documents uniil argil i.eilt had been heard. Mr Bros said tiie Registrar of tile Validation Court would be telegraphed to at un. e. and the documents ordered. They could arrive on 1- riday. The case accordingly stands over until a Glut to be fixed ; next week. 1 TUCKED v. Iv AIT 1 L.J AD lit iARD. i In the course of argument in tne ease, ■ Tucker v. tho lvaiti Load District, which

man I ".strict, wlncli [ was also before the Appeal Court to due, : ilr Del.autour, for the appellant, indicated that although the amount involved in the appeal was small it was a test case, in which all the ratepayers wc-re concerned, , and not only were two lioad Hoards immediately involved affected but at least two others in the district were similarly placed. Judgment may bo expected some time next week. The appeal from the decision of Judge i Conolly in the case of W. H. Tucker v, ivaiti lvoad JJistrict was hoard in the Court

of Appeal to-day. A loan was raised by the Jvaiti Road Uistrict lituler the Local llodies Loans Act on the security of a special rate, and subsequently part of the j district was, on iho petition of ratepayers, constituted a seiiarate road district, and by agreement and arbitration assets and i liabilities were apportioned between the old and new districts. Under this settle- . ment tbo new road board was made liable I to the* old road board for a certain propor- ] tion of tbo loan and interest. Tbo question raised by the present ease is whether, notwithstanding this arrangement, the individual ratepayers in the severed portion : of tho district remain directly liable to the : board of the old district for the original j special rate, although they havo ceased to bo ratepayers of tho old district, jjtulgo Conolly bold that they remain so liable, and the present appeal is from this j decision. Mr DeLautour is appearing in support of the appeal, and Mr Gray for respondents. The ease is being heard by the Chief Justice and Judges Williams and Edwards.

Counsel for respondent contended that the Titirangi district had not been properly constituted a separate district, and further that in any case the award opporlioning the liabilities between the old and new districts had improperly dealt with tho question of liability for interest and sinking fund of the loan, and that tho Kaili Load Hoard were still responsible to the Colonial Treasurer for the whole loan and still entitled to look to the ratepayers’ new district for payment of the special rate on which the loan was secured. Counsel for tho appellant argued that ir was now too late to attack proceedings.? by which Titirangi was constituted a separate district, and that the award was properly made, and could not be impeached. The Court reserved its decision. The case of in re Ttiiiora 2 r, section was then called on Thus is an appeal from the decision of the Validation Court at Gisborne, which was before the Court sitting in July, and which stood over in

order that the matter be brought belore the Court in the unmoor required by statutes under which the Validation : Gonitis constituted. .Messrs IJees and . [', Ganipbel] are eppeernio iur the appellant, and .Messrs Hell a.,d Findlay for the Itank of New Zealand.

On the ease being ealled on, counsel for the Bank again contended that tiie Court had not been supplied with sufficient information to enable it to dispose of tiie case.

Mr Bees pointed out mat Hie Validai tion Court, and not the appellant, should I forward tiie proceedings. He maintained j that sufficient material had been forj warded, but stated that anything more | which it might lie thought advisable to I have could easily be obtained,

I Finally, the Court decided that the ; summons of tiie caveat and the decree of tiie Validation Court ought to he brought be)ore it, and tiie ease was adjourned for that- purpose. Argument will he taken next week.