SUPREME COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 15 September 1917, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTING AT HOKITIKA,

(Before His Honour Justice Sim)

Ilis Honor took his seat at 11 a.m CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

Robert M. King v. Thomas Kennedy, a claim for £250 damages for seduction, of the daughter of plaintiff. Mr. J. J. Dougnll of Christchurch npjioared for the plaintiff and Mr. Alper# of Christchurch, with him —r. Sellers, for the defendant.

Mr. Dougall outlined the case for Hie plaintiff at considerable length, and iben led evidence in support.

Tho following gave evidence: —Mrs E. King (wife of plaintiff) Mrs E, D. King (wife -of plaintiff’# son,) Alfred Edward King (son).

The Court adjourned at 1.15 p.m., until 2.15 p.ni.

AFTERNOON SITTING.

The Court resumed at 2.15 p.m

The cross-examination of tho witness was concluded, and the case for plaintiff was closed.

Mr Alpors opened the case for the defend', and then called defendant, who was examined at considerable length. This was the only evidence for tho defence.

Counsel addressed the jury and his Honour then summed up, dealing mainly on the question of damages. The jury retired at 4.50 p.m., and returned in twelve minutes with a verdict for plaintiff for £25. His Honour allowed costs ns per scale with the usual disbursements.

A MINING APPEAL. In re McGrath (Mr. Murdoch) a case stated by Walden Hutchison to determine the power under Section 336 of the Mining Act to renew a license for water race under the Mining Act of 1886.

Mr. Murdoch in support of the application contended that a license for a j water race granted under the Mining Act 1889 had attached to it a great or. larger right of renewal than a license! granted under any other Mining Act. j The maximum period for which a li* j cense could be granted under the Mining! Act 1886 was fifteen years with a per-j petual right of renewal, after the expiry j of the current terms. Liccness granted under the subsequent acts of 1898, j 1905 or the present Aet of 1908 were for ] a maximum term of 42 years with a j right of renewal subject to certain con-' ditions, one of which was that the licen! see must not, more than two months i or less than one month before tile end • of the term apply for a renewal of tho i license. Until the year 1899, every li- i cense for a water race, irrespective; of the Aot under which it was granted,j had to have its registration renewed an-: nually, but under the Act of 1899 thi&j was abolished. In the present case a • license was granted under the Act of 1886 for six years and had notyct been renewed at the expiration of the second terms of 15 years. Tt appeared from the case stated that all conditions attached to the license had been complied with, save and except the application for renewal and the license was not liable to forfeiture for any other cause owing to the bona fide use of the right by the licensee. He quoted the case of in re Mellroy and Louiscli decided by Mr., Mr. Justice Cooper and reported in volume 7 of the Gazette Law Reports, ( which was a decision in support of the applicant in this case. He also quoted . a decision by. Mr. Justice Williams in; re Maidmnn and TTnlliday decided in 1912, and in speaking of the latter decision. Counsel remarked that a mostunique incident was noticeable. Tn N.Z. Law Reports .and also Gazette Law Reports a perusal of the case seemed to indicate that his Honor Mr. Justice Williams followed the judgment of Mr. Justice Cooper in the previous ease, hut an examination of the ease as read by Mr. Stubbs as registrar of the Court at Dunedin a s reported in the Otago Daily Times showed that the reverse was the case. Counsel asked permission to refer to the Otago Daily Times report. His Honor: Certainly ; these reports ' are verv reliable. j

Counsel proceeded to read the ex-j cised portions of the judgment which ; appeared in the daily paper. nis Honour: That is most remark- j able. The, alteration subsequently appearing in the legal reports must have been made by the judge himself and liis amended judgment is in your favour. 1

Mr. Murdoch: Yes, that is my con-', tention, and the reason appeared trt be that bis Honor found that the regnla- j tion which he had first doubted had the j force and effect of a statute on account, of the fact that regulations made under the Mining Act are gazetted and . laid on the table of the House in a j special manner. Counsel quoted a nnm 1 her of sections of different acts bearing mi the subject after wh'ch bis Honor stated that as the point, was a most important one and apparently affected a number of rights in.other parts of New Zealand as well, ho would give a considered judgment at a later stage. The Court then adjourned till next day.

SATURDAY, SEP. 15th, 1917

Tht Court resumed at 10 a.m STAMP ACT APPEAL.

The Deputy Commissioner of Stamps, Mr W. P. "Morgan, appealed 'against the decision of Air Hutchison. S.l in dismissing charges for failure to stamp a. document. In July, 1916, the Magistrate heard a number of charges by the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps against J. Park, T. O’Neill, W. "Wilson and W. Jeffries for the non stamping of a certain document. Tho question at issuo was an appraisement or an award. The Magistrate had dismissed throe charges and adjourned the other three chargee ponding an appeal being hoard. Mr. Hannan appeared for tho appellant and Mr Murdoch and Mr Park for the respondents. The appeal against Mr Park was dismissed, Air Murdoch raised a technical point tliat be bad not been properly served, which was upheld. £3 3s costs being allowed. ! Argument in the other appeals wore then carried on.

After hearing counsel hia Honour reserved judgment.

IN BANKRUPTCY. ■Anton Falkenbacli applied for his discharge. ATr Sellers for applicant. Objected to by G. Schaef, for whom Mr Hannan appeared.

| After argument -an order was made ' for the discharge asked f° r > subject to bankrupt having judgment entered up against him by the Deputy Aaaign&e for the amount owing, £176 9s. Bd. to G. Sclmef. This concluded the business of the I sitting.