APPEAL COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 15, 12 July 1911, Page 5

APPEAL COURT.

POWERS OF AN EDUCATIONAL BOARD. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Tuesday. In the Appeal Court this morning the hearing of the appeal of the New Zealand Educational Institute against the decision of Judge Chapman, that an education board has power to require that no children below Standard 11. shall be allowed to attend a district high school within its district. The "base was adjourned from the last sittings to allow the Solicitor-General to be served as defendant as representing the Crown and the Education Department. He now appears for the Crown, and Messrs. H. D. Bell and .Fell for the institute, and Mr. Hutton for the Wanganui Education Board.

Wellington, Last Night. In the Wanganui Education Board case, Mr. Bell, K.C., said that only in case of separate boys' and girls' schools could pupils below Standard 11. be excluded and a separate infant school established. This could not be done with mixed schools. The provisions of the Act made a district high school a public mixed school, and consequently the Board could not exclude the pupils under Standard 11.

The Solicitor-General adopted Mr. Bell's argument, and stated that although tlif Board had the power prior to 1!X)1 to establish any schools they liked under the present Act, the board could only establish (1) mixed schools; (2) separate boys'; (3) separate girls'; (4) separate infa'nt schools; but the last-named only where there are separate boys' and girls' schools. Mr. Hutton, for the Wanganui Board, contended that the Board's powers could not be curtailed by the definition of mixed schools" in the schedule, and that such a definition was not exhaustive nor compulsory. He submitted that the Board liul a wide discretion.

The court reserved judgment. MASSEY v. NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Wellington, Last Night. Mr. W. Massey's appeal against a judgment dismissing his application for a new trial of his libel action against the New Zealand Times, came before the Appeal Court this afternoon. Mr. U. D. Bell, K.C. (with him Messrs. Grey and Fell) appeared for Mr. Massey, and Mr. Solomon, K.C. (with him Messrs. Blair and Fair) for respondents. In the trial of the ease, the jury found that the figure in the cartoon represented Mr. Massey, but that the cartoon was political pure and simple, and not libellous.

Mr. 8011, K.C., in opening, laid stress upon the fact that as set out in part of the amended statement of claim there had been during the year 1910 published a scurrilous and improper pamphlet reflecting 011 the Premier. This had been admitted in the statement of defence, which, however, disclaimed any intention of suggesting Mr. Massey as in any way responsible for the issue or publication of the pamphlet. Mr. Bell contended that the cartoon charged Mr. Massey with being concerned in the dUscmlnation of the pamphlet, and so had been guilty of a men and despicable act, and, further, was a liar. He said it was not denied that if Mr. Massey had been concerned he would have been of a despicable act. and counsel contended the only meaning of the cartoon was that Mr. Massey had been concerned. The court adjourned till to-morrow.