Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

BROAD v. THE CROWN.

skjtl* | A QUESTION OF INTEREST. i 1 Pea Pkess Association. Wellington, March 8. ■ In the Supreme Court, before Mr Justice Hosting, Mr C. B. Collins, of Wanganui, appeared in support of the petition of Catherine Lena Broad, of Wanganui, to determine the right of suppliant to interest on the sum of £2343 2s lOd, the sum for which .judgment was given in her favor m the Supreme Court on December 4, 1913, on a claim for damages in respect to the death of her husband as the result of a level crossing, rail way accident. The Chief Justice, who gave the judgment on that occasion, reserved leave to the Crown to move to set aside the judgment, and on August 4, 1914, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment, but it wars upheld by the Privy Council, and on September 7, 1915, the sum in question was paid to suppliant. She, however, claimed £247 9s 4d for interest on that sum, at “the rate of 15 per cent, from December 4, 1913, till September 7, 1915. Mr J. W. Salmond, K.C. (Solicitor-General), represented the Crown.

i Counsel for suppliant admitted H-t in the United Kingdom interest vos not recoverable as against the Crown, but he argued that under the New Zealand statutes interest was due a-id payable in such case; that its nonpayment constituted a breach of the statutory duty for which suppliant was entitled to damages, the measure of such damages being the interest she was entitled to. | His Honor said that, so far, there appeared to ho justice in the claim for interest, but justice as against the Crown was a difficult matter, and it seemed to be rather a question of 'he difficulty of getting it than of proving they were entitled to it. j The Solicitor-General contended: (1) That the claim was barred by lapse of time; (2) that no petition of right would lie upon the judgment obtained in the previous petition ; and (3) that judgment on a petition ol right did not carry interest as against the Crown. ! Judgment was reserved.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/STEP19160309.2.27

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVIV, Issue 79, 9 March 1916, Page 7

Word count
Tapeke kupu
352

BROAD v. THE CROWN. Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVIV, Issue 79, 9 March 1916, Page 7

BROAD v. THE CROWN. Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVIV, Issue 79, 9 March 1916, Page 7

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert