APPEAL COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1818, 26 July 1906, Page 3

APPEAL COURT.

LYSNAR V. DUNLOP. I’KESS ASSOCIATION

Wellington, yesterday. In tbe Appoal Oaatt, in tbo Gisborne Owe LysDsr v, Don'op and unother, tbo Cbioi Justice dolivorod judgteo it on behalf of himself and Mr Justice Cbnpraan, iu Wbioh the judgment in tbe Court b.-lovv Was affirmed and the appeal dismissed, with costs on the highest scale as from a distance. Mr Jnstioa Edwards, in a written judgment, concurred.

Wellington, last night, The Appeal Couit sat for judgments this afternoon. In tho ease of Cowl-shaw •nd others versus the Christchurch Prrs. Company- and another, a claim by pliinfiffs tbat ordinary ebarrboldt-rs were entitled to a dividend of 8 prr o-’nt. cut of sorpln? profits (after the pnfererco sba-o- , holders bavn been paid their dividend), instead of tbe profits go'ng iotu the busi-

nes9, separate judgments were delivered by the Chief Justice and Mr Juslioe Edwa d*. Mr Justioa Chapman road a joiut judgment of himself and Mr Justice Cooper. The result of the j idgmsu, w 8 that p’aintiffs’ obsb was dismissed. Too question of costs was reserved for future Bigamsnt. In the Appeal Cjurt, in tho Auckland oasr, Ksunoaly v, Eawana Karaka, judgment wag delivered. A native had been injured at Te Puke by a shot from a pea riiio fired by K Dnealy’s sod, and tbo jury award,d i-500 damsg-s Me Justice Edwards bad lefused a nonsuit, and against his decision an appeal was made. The Chief Justios and Justioes Cooptr and Chapman delivered separate judgments, the result of wbfob was a ooDoarrenoo that the appeal bo dismissed with costs on tbo rnidd e scale as from, a distance. An application was made by Mr Brruod this morning Io review the decision of tbo Chief Juetioe in granting a change rf venue from Wellington to Dunedin of the BC'.ion Braund v. MoLsan and Neill. BrauDd urged that bo would not get a fair trial at DuDodin, and fff-r.d to pay the cost of •transporting the Colonial Bank books to Wellington, The Chief Justioe refused tfce application, with costs £5 5s to each defendant.

Later.—The Court tbii afternoon nave judgment ou on application by Victor W. Braund /or leave to appeal to the Privy Ooanoil against the judgment given by the Court of Appeal, on an application made by Me Brannd for ao order prohi biting the burning of the books of the late Colonial Bank. Leave to appeal was refnsed.

FUBTHER- PARTICULARS OF

JUDGMENTS.

IJBESS1 J BESS ASSOCIATION Wellington, last night. Io the Appeal Court, in the case Lysnar 7. Dunlop and another, the Chief Justice delivered a lengthy judgment on behalf of himself and Mr fustics Chapman. The judgment dealt first with a motim by oppeflant for the admission of fresh evidence before the Court of Appeal. Their Honors set out tales that were to be dsducel from previous dtcisions of the Court of Appeal on this point, and were of opinion that it would be vii 1 .t'ng these rales to admit evidence which appellants laid asked the Ouurt to admis. The correspondence between parties was then very fully referred to, anJ their Honors were of opinion’ that the correspondence on the whole was strongly orrroboratei 'ey respondent, and that as far as the .Dnolops’ rquity of redemption was cin cemod, be was entitled to releem, mtjiot Ito payment of £250, amount of costs due to appel ant on 10th of Aognst 1898 As far as the traosf.r of Mrs Dun'op’s mortgage to appellee's was co icernod, Their Honors agreed with the leirned jadgo in the Court bslow tbit it had been obtained from her by appelKn' while acting as her solicitor, and without her getting the benefit of independent alvice. They farther hold that the tcan saotion in her cate was in the nature of a gif‘, she-getting absolutely no Bonsideration for it from appellant’ Tbe delay in bringing proceedings was not sufficient, Ibeir Honors held, to prejudics ber right to have tbe transaction set aside, as sbe did not know tbe exaot nature of her rights until the bearing of tbe actioo, the documentary evidence being all'in tbe possession of appellants. The appeal would be dismissed with ocs's on tbe highest soale and as from a distanoo, and with £lO 10a 009 ts for tbe motion to admit fresh evidence. Their Honors were, however, of opinion tbat tbe fiist paragraph of tbe deoree, which stated tbat the transfers were obtained throngh fraud and oon trlvance of appellant, should be amended, bb the evidence, in their opinion, d d not show that the appellants had been guilty of fraud iu the takiog of tbe transfers. Mr Justice Edwards, in a lengthy judgment, affirmed the judgment delivered by him in the Court below. Ho agreed in the "main with tbs judgment of the other members of the Court, but held in effect that the appellant had been guilty of fraud in the taking of the transfers. He stated, however, that in his opinion it was important whether the appellant had been guilty of fraud when he took the transfers or subsequently.His Honor explained that he was not responsible 1 for the wording of the decree. Appellant had the right to object to its wording, but failed to take advantage of his right Dr I'indlay applied for leave to appeal to the Privy Council Leave was granted upon terms as to the granting of security for costs, and stay of proceedings, to be settled on Saturday next, when tho Court of Appeal again-sits.

Further particulars, have been received to the effect that if the present encum France on the property is not discharged a monetary consideration should be paid, and that the cost of improvements should be allowed; In the judgment delivered by the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Chapman, frequent references to the presiding judge’s (Justice Edwards) assurances to them arc ■quoted, and judgment as to balance of testimony is mainly based on this.