APPEAL COURT

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 90, 6 October 1911, Page 5

APPEAL COURT

•CIHMIDT AND BELLSHAW v. GREENWOOD. By Telegraph—Prees Association. Wellington, Thursday. In the case Schmidt and Bellshaw v. Greenwood, the Court intimated that if they determined that fraud could not be raised by the resident or the evidence negatived fraud, that the further question whether the representation as to the area of grassed land entitled respondent to compensation would be reserved, to be argued before a stronger court. The counsel continued argument as to the question of fraud and the Court then reserved its decision on that point. OONCEAMENT OP BIRTH.

The Appeal Court to-day took the case Rex v. Mary Brown, a case of concealment of birth, ft was admitted by the Crown that the evidence of the identity of the child was unsatisfactory, and the question for the Court is whether, in view of this, prisoner is rightly convicted. Mr. Hunter, Christchurch, appeared for the prisoner, and the Solici-tor-General for the Crown, Judgment was reserved. AFFECTING A LEASE. Wellington, Last Night. The Court of Appeal this afternoon heard argument on an originating summons. Budge v. Bayly and others and the Attorney-General, moved from the Supreme Court. The question which arises and upon which the Court's determinative is sought, is as follows: — Where a lease of a small grazing run was granted under the provisions of the Land Act, 1885, arc lessees on ttfe expiry of the term of the said lease, after the passing of the Land Act, 1008, entitled only to a renewal thereof or to teVms lixed by the Land Act, 1885, and is same subject ito conditions of renewal contained in section 209 of the last mentioned Act, or is same subject to the Land Act, 1908, and all conditions of the said last mentioned Act applicable under renewal? Mr. Chapman, K.C., and Mr. Quilliam appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. Bell, K.C., and Mr. Fell for defendants Bayley and others, and the Solicitor-General for the Commissioner of Crown Lands and Attorney-General. The lease granted in renewal purports to be under the Act of 1908. Mr. Chapman contended that the lease in renewal should have been under the provisions of the Act of 1885, and that there is no authority to grant a lease under the Act of iOOB. The Solicitor-General supported the contention of Mr. Chapman. Mr. Bell, however, contended that the new lease under the act of 1908 was valid, the tenant having elected to take a renewal under either statute. Argument was unfinished when the court adjourned for the day. v