COURT OF APPEAL

Hokitika Guardian, 19 March 1931, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL

(By Telegraph—Per Press Association) WELLINGTON, March 18. .• ■'Argument in the• case Sun Newspap- , .erg- : Lt{l. versus N.Z. Newspapers Ltd. ' continued in the Court of Appeal. Mr Roger so u in support of Mr Johnstone Y submitted the element of adaptability of. a, building for newspaper production which had been a predominent factor in Sir Walter Singer’s assessment, was only one of the elements which should have been considered by the arbitrator,

and should not have been so all important.- It-, was not suggested by lij) -N/Z;. Newspapers Ltd. that the system j of .valuation advocated by Vaile, their valuer, was the only system to be taken into consideration, but it should have been considered by Sir W. Stringer and it was not. The mere fact that' they called no evidence before the arbitrator. did not relieve him of the obligation to act in a judicial capacity. Chief Justice Myers intervened, saving all difficulties in the case arose from a false sense of economy on the part of both parties, for if the parties had been represented by capable counsel before the arbitrator, then all difficulties won)d have been avoided and the method of valuation for which Mr Rogerson contended would have been placed before the arbitrator or considered by him. ’ . WELLINGTON. March 18. ; At the-'Appeal Court in the case, ,Sun Newspapers Ltd. v. N.Z. Newspapers I/td.., .Mr .Northcroft, in opposing the latter’s motion, said that the case for •the Suu Newspapers Ltd. would be dealt' with ..under two headings : (1) Whether.There.was, in fact, any mistake'in principle on the part of the arbitrator; and -• (2) whether, even if there were, the .Court would be entitled top liter fere. He would deal with the former point, and Mr Cooke with the latter. Relative, to the first heading, Mr Norhcroft Contended, that the onus was on the applicant, who came to court and. claimed that there .had been wrong principles adopted by the arbitrator to satisfy the Court that that was so; -From the closest scrutiny, of. the award, it was difficult to see ltlig,t, aiiy particular, principles had been adopted, by, Sir, Walter Stringer; but, even .if; any particular principle cmjld--hf>. ascertained by reference to the .affidavit filed, there was no evidence' before the Court that Sir W. Stringer .had in any way, violated the principles advocated by Mr Johnstone as binding on an, arbitrator in making a ■ • valuation;;. .The essence of the appli- 1 cants! criticism of-Sir W. Stringer’s

award Was- that Sir Walter was bound by the actual market value, hut there Was nothing to show that lie had ig- ■' nbred the r market value or the market '• conditions existing' at. the time; nor - was there anything which would infer that he bad 'done anything different from .talcing .everything yevelant into consideration. ' , Mr Cooke, in support, said that the agreement for the sale* and' purchase left Sir Walter Stringer free to value in any reasonable or recognised way. Ip particular it did not, for instance, oblige him to consider what the property would have fetched on the open market, but, .assuming that the reference obliged him to consider what would have been obtained on tlie mar- ........ Jcet, it:clearly gave him jurisdiction to adopt any reasonable or recognised method of that market

value. There, moreover, was nothing w j in th<£ arbitrator's which indicated 'that he considered, or hold, ; and unless the appliqarijbs; could.; show -that ho could

no‘t;..q'6ssiblyCbe' justified in holding tha.t,..?V ,tn?ii;ket <T.id exist, then cost, less . de^>r^fa tion, \vas the recognised moth. '!.-V#d,,oof9sbe^t jrihing the correct market . value.. , ’ < ; vl)eaiiiig:: v’iibh .Mr Northrrot’s .second pqmt v ,;{3yri‘ .Qookq submitted that, even if., i\ n^fstake.bad been made by Sir . jtlie/'ambit of his refer- . cnee, -, tlie : Court, could , not correct it. ’ beohuse. (I.) ythe ; ini.stakc avUs not of a i wobWi’induce the Court, to j y '.interfere ;y (2); ■. therfr: .vas no express ''Vb adrpissipri by. the "arbitrator of a con- * A*{«tfcju»^niist ; ake; 'rand . (3) the arbitrator 'f. diaVt hot l .itsked the- CoUi't to correct any : mistake,;' ■ ■ '’jPecisioirwas reserved

• CASE OF TAVO SOLICITORS

DISQUALIFICATION SO lIHGT. . WELLINGTON, March 18. 2 The 'Court of. Appeal dealt with an application bv the New Zealand Law • Society ’to.. have : (Ronald Gray Mason, 'and. Charles Ellis WeddingTinm both of Auckland, barristers and solicitors, struck off the rolls of practising barristers and solicitors in the Dominion. Mr Yon Haiist, for the Law Society, said the application was based on the grounds that the practitioners had failed. to keepi separate, trust accounts, had done, acts which amounted to the misappropriation of trust monies, had failed to have their trust account audited, had made fictitious entries'to mislead their .auditors, had A shortage in their triist: account, and had had cheques dis_ H Ac honoured'oii’ ! numerous occasions. Air Singer, .for the practitioners, said . that tlieyUiad- not deliberately failed to ;; Lave their trust-accounts audited. The practitioners had been in practice sine, the termination of the war. hut latterly,- through muddle and incompetence in book-keeping, had fallen into irregulatities. There. had. never been a great .shortage, and at present there was no deficiency. The Court reserved its decision.