APPEAL COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 July 1921, Page 4

APPEAL COURT.

PUBLIC OFFICER’S SALARY. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, July 13. The Court of Appeal was occupied this morning in the consideration of an appeal from a judgment of his Honor the Chief Justice, directing that a writ of mandamus be issued to members of the Post and Telegraph Appeal Board to hear and determine an appeal by the respondent, Percy Reginald Sutherland, against the salary allotted to him for the year ended March 31, 1921. At the hearing this morning Mr. W. C. McGregor, K.C., Solicitor-General, ap. peared for appellants, and Mr. Myers for the respondent Sutherland. Mr. McGregor, for the appellants, contended that the judgment of the Chief Justice was wrong on the following grounds: (1) because, the determination of the secretary to allow an officer other than respondent a larger increment was not the determination of a superior officer relative to respondent’s salary or promotion ; (2) because the amount of the special increment was entirely in the discretion of the secretary himself, there was no other method by which the appellate tribunal could fix the amount of any such increment; (3) on account of the delay, expense anil hardship which the view of the Chief Justice would involve; (4) because questions involving the relative grade of the salary of an officer were confined entirely to the list of officers as provided by the Post and Telegraph Act. Mr. Myers, for the respondent, Sutherland, contended that the list of officers issued by the Telegraph Department in. 1920 was just as much and no more classification than the list issued in 1919, and if there was an appeal from the 1919 list, as the department admitted, there must be the right of appeal from the list of 1920. Alternatively, he contended that if the court should hold the 1920 list was not a classification list, but merely a list of officers, the Chief Justice was right in holding, a? lr. did, that the list involved determination regarding Sutherland’s salary, and on that ground the right of appeal lay. After Mr. McGregor replied the court reserved its decision.