APPEAL COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 18 April 1921, Page 4

APPEAL COURT

w. V. WHITTA’S CASE

WELLINGTON, April 14. The Court of Appeal was engaged this afternoon in hearing tho case of the King v. William Vivian Whitta. The case was stated for the opinion of tho Court of Appeal by Mr Justice Herdman. The accused was arraigned at tho February sittings of the Supremo Court at Christchurch on four counts, charging him under the Gaming Amendment Act, 1920, with canying on business as a bookmaker. At the trial, counsel for tile, accused objected to the admission of certain evi-

dence, viz:— (1) Evidence tending to prove thac in carrying on business as a bookmaker, tho accused’s activities extended to Australia. (2) Evidence tending to prove that a son of accused carried on business as a bookmaker for and on behalf of the accused.

(3) Evidence which tended to prove that tho accused had oarried on business as a bookmaker prior to the date of the coming into operation of the Gaming Amendment Act, 1920. At the trial the Judge, Mr Justice Herdman, admitted this evidence, but stated a ease for the opinion of the Court of Appeal as to whether such evidence had been properly admitted. At the bearing this afternoon, Mr W. C. MacGregor, K.C., Solicitor-Gen-eral, appeared for the Crown, and Mr | M. J. Gresson, with him 'Mr C. S. ! Thomas, for the accused Whitta. j Mr Gresson, in tho course of his

argument, maintained that the mere fact that Whitta carried on business that was perfectly legal when it was carried on was no proof that he would continue to carry on the same business when it became illegal.

The Solicitor-General contended: (1) 1 That evidence was admissablo to show that the acts complained of were done in the carrying on of an established bus incss; and (2) to prove the status of ! tho accused as a bookmaker. I The Court reserved its decision. j A 1 HOTEL CASE. WELLINGTON, April 15. j The Full Court was occupied to-day in consideration of the caso of Beath : and Co., Ltd., drapers, of Christchurch ! against ’ Walter Henry* Overton, of | Christchurch, hotelkeeper. The case j was heard in Christchurch on April ( : tn j and now conics before the Full Court ; by way of a caso stated. 'The plaintiff | company in its statement of claim nij leges that defendant had committed j certain breaches of tho covenants con- ; tained in the lease of the A 1 hotel, j in Christchurch, of which plaintiff is i to owner and defendant the lessee and j licensee. The breaches complained of I are failure to repair and keep clean | the premises, whereby plaintiff alleges | that the license of the hotel is endani geral, and plaintiff asks for possession ; of the hotel and mesne profits. Dej fondant, in his statement of defence i denies that he committed any breach of , the covenants of the lease, but asks for | relief against forfeiture should the : Court find that breaches have been i oiumitted.

Mr Myers, in opening the case for the plaintiff, maintained that the evidence at the trial clearly proved breaches of the covenants of the lease, and that the license had been imperilled thereby. Ho also stated that the Health Department did not come too well out of the proceedings, as it apparently complied with requests by the licensee as to the nature of the report it should make concerning the necessity for repairs and tho rebuilding of the hotel. "

.Mr M. J. Gresson, for the defendant, maintained that since, 1917 the question of rebuilding tho hotel had been under consideration and that the chief objections made to the hotel by the Licensing Committee were really matters of structural alteration for which the landlord, and not the defendant was liable. He admitted certain minor breaches of covenant by tho defendant, but argued that these had been waived.

Mr Gresson had not concluded his argument when the Court adjourned till Monday.