APPEAL COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10276, 10 May 1919, Page 10

APPEAL COURT

JUDGMENTS DELIVERED

IMPORTANT POINT OF LAW DECIDED. Yesterday the Appeal Court delivered several judgments in cases recently heard. The Bench was occupied by Their Honours the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr Justice Chapman, Mr Justice Sim and Mr Justice Hosking. . ■ . The first case dealt with was that in which an interesting question of law was raised regarding a case of alleged bigamy. Walter Lander had been connoted'for having married Mary Richardson, at Ahaura, on the Wert Coast, on August 9th, 1012, and afterwards gone through tho marital ceremony with Hilda May Rduse at Oodford England, in October. 1917. On the hearing of the case in the Supreme Court the legal question was raised by Mr Justice Edwards for the determination or the Court of Appeal as to whether the Supremo Court of New Zealand had the jurisdiction to try and sentence a prisoner in respect ot a crime committed in England.

In a lengthy judgment the Chiet oJustice held that the question of territorial jurisdiction did not arise. Lander was a native of New Zealand, was in the service of the Now Zealand Government (being a soldier), and had never ceased to bo domiciled in New Zealand. He was of opinion that the court had jurisdiction and that the conviction must be upheld. _ The remaining judges, however, held that the conviction should 'be quashed, and for this they relied on the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of McLeod v. the Attorney-General of New South Wales in 1881. The conviction was therefore quashed. ■ ' At tho hearing Sir John Salmond, K.C., Solicitor-General, appeared for the Crown and Mr H. F. O’Leary for Lander. JURY’S STRANGE FINDING. Tse case of Harold Maxwell Parker contained some unusually interesting features. ’ Parker was tried beiore tur Justice Chapman at the Wanganui Supreme Court on three counts—roouery with violence, theft ot £lO 9s from the person of Lewis Henry \V in wood, and assault on the latter. The jury ■ returned a verdict ot guilty in respect of the third count, but with regard to the remainder of tae indictment the jury failed to agree. After further consideration, the jury informed the judge that its verdict was “guilty’ on tho third count, and on the rest of the indictment the only conclusion it could arrive at was: vTbat after assault, under fear of further violence, Winwood handed over tno money to the accused.” On that finding His Honoui took the responsibility of directing the jury to return a verdict of guilty on those counts, but ho stated at the time that he would ask the Appeal Court whether the direction was a right one. Parker was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour on the third count, and to fittccu mouths on the second count, tho sentences to run concurrently. With regard to the first count, the prisoner was not sentenced, pending the Appeal Court’s decision. • . The court was asked to decide tho following questions: / (1) Is the verdict a voirdict of guilty on which sentence could proper.y be passed ? ■ ■ ' (2) Was tho direction to tho jury, following upon their finding, to return a verdict of guilty correct? (3) Is the verdict supported by and consistent with the evidence? The court decided that the conviction in tho first case must be quashed, and the conviction on the second count confirmed. . Mr P. S. K. Macaassey appeared for the Crown, and Mr D. L’E. Edwards for tho prisoner. A MINING CASE.

Decision was given in a West Coast mining case in which the apnellant was WilUam John Mollroy. of Greymouth, merchant, and the respondent John Nyberg, of Ruru, sawmilleL The appeal

was for an order reversing the judgment of Mr .Justice Sim in the Supreme Court in September, 1918, whereby an appeal from an adverse decision of the Warden’s Court at Greymouth regarding the forfeiture of a water race at Ahaura was allowed. The judge had ordered ft decree of forfeiture with costs to be fixed by the warden. The respondent was ordered to nay the costs of the appeal with disbursements and witnesses to be fixed bv the Registrar. The grounds on which the appeal was made were thaj; tho judgment of the Supreme Court was erroneous , in fact and in law. The facts of the original case were that Nyherg, who was the holder of a miner’s right, alleged that Mollroy had a water race which had been entirely unused. Forfeiture was claimed and refused hy the warden, and his decision was upset by the judge, Th court reversed the decision of the Supremo Court and upheld the warden's decision. At the hearing Sir John Findlay, with him Mr J. A. Murdoch (Hokitika) anpear*l for the apnellant, and Mr H.‘O’Leary, with him Mr M. Hannan (Greymouth) for tho respondent.

• AN ASSESSMENT MATTER.

In connection with the cnlso of Janies McNab and others, as trustees of the will of the late William Pinney, deceased, against the Commissioner of Taxes, the question . submitted was whether land tax was to bo nsfws.scd_ on the unimproved value appearing m the valuation roll on March 31st proecd.ng tho year of taxation (in this case March. 1919), an! not upon tho revison of. that valuation made after March 31 st, but before tho assessment of the tax. On behalf of the appellant, it was held that th- taxation roar was from .April Ist. 1918, to March 31 st, 1919, and tile Order-in-Couned, which authorised a general revaluation, was dated September 22nd. 1917. and directed a rovabmtio" of all the lands in the valuation district to he made in 1918. In tho case under notice the revaluation was made suhseouent to March 31st 1918. and the land tar assessment was made on September 28th, 1918. Th- tax for th- year 1918-19 was payable on all laud noss-swi hy a person on Anarch 31st pupccjlun. thvear for which th° tax was unv-hle. in thl- case tho roll as at March 31st, 1918. •

It was contended for the Crown tb.-t the district valuation roll was a periedm rcR nnd not a permanent continuing thing. Th- time of valuation was tho time -i which the valuator) w.ss wanted and not the time at which the vnlnn-li-n was mad-. The revision of tho nil, whenever made, dated back to March 31st. for that was the time at

which tho valuation was wanted' and when' tho new rot) came into operation. It was the roll that was current and not the valuation. Tli - • ouvt allowed tho appeal with 25 guineas cost. A!r C. P. Skerrett. K.C., with him Mr R. Kennedy, appeared for the appellants, and Sir John Salmond, K. 0., tor the Commissioner of Taxes.