Appeal Court.

Hokitika Guardian, 26 July 1921, Page 4

Appeal Court.

HINDU SOLICITOR’S APPLICATION REFUSED. WELLINGTON, July 25. The Full Court gave judgment this morning in connection with an application by Manilal, a, Hindu barrister, to lie admitted as a. barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, heard on July 18th. Justice Sim, Acting Chief Justice delivered the judgment of the Court. After dealing with the facts, his Honour stated the applicant had failed to discharge the onus that was on him, of showing lie was of good character and worthy to he admitted as a barrister and solicitor. The application for admission was there fore refused.

POSTAL OFFICER’S APPEAI

AVET.TANGTON, July 25. The Court of Appeal this morning gave judgment in the ease of Cutten and otehrs v. Sutehrland, heard on July 13th. This was an appeal from. the. judgment of the Chief Justice, in which he directed a mnnadnius to issue against the Post and Telegraph Appeal Board, ordering it to hear an appeal bv the respondent Sutherland on the question of the special increment allowed to him. The Chief Justice hold there had been a determination as to Sutherland’s salary and that therefore he had the right to appeal. Justice Stringer delivered the judgment of the Court in which he said the Court was of opinion the Chief Justice was right, in holding that the list published by the Department in April 1.920 was not a classification list, on which an appeal would lie. The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed with the Chief Justice on the question as to whether the granting of a special increment was a “determination of salary.” The word “salary” said Justice Stringer m not include increment. The act .lie said, clearly intended that the matter of special increment- should ho left entirely to the Secretary of the Department and therefore the Court was of the opinion that the decision of the Secretary on this matter could not he appealed against*. The appeal was therefore allowed.