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

COURT OF APPEAL.

A JUDGE’S DIRECTION. & : .1/ By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Oct. 3. The Court of Appeal heard argument on a case -stated by Mr. Justice Reed, an which the King v. Roscoe and Holland who were tried before Mr. Justice Reed at Wellington on August 1 and 2 on an indictment charging them with the theft of goods from the Empire Trading Company. The judge, in his summing up, directed the jury, as a matter of law, that if they were satisfied that the goods were removed by the accused without the knowledge of the manager of the company, then the prisoners had to satisfy the jury that they had no dishonest end in view. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, but added a recommendation to leniency on account of irtsufficient proof that the accused did not intend to pay -for the goods. The questions before the Appeal Court were: (1) Whether the judge misdirected the jury as to the onus of proof; (2) whether the verdict amounted to one of “not guilty.” Decision was reserved. PENSION CASE DISMISSED. Wellington, Oct. 3. The Full Court delivered judgment this morning in the case of Wheeler v. Cooper and others (War Pensions Board) heard on July 10. The facts were that the husband of Mrs. Wheeler was In receipt of a war pension because of partial incapacity. The board refused allocation on the ground that the husband was not incapacitated from work. Plaintiff contended the board was bound to grant some pension and applied to the Court for a mandamus to hear the application and grant some pension. It was held by the Court in its judgment that the Pensions Board had not refused to exercise its jurisdiction, but had, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, refused to grant a pension. The Court moreover was not satisfied the decision of the board was erroneous. The board was not compelled' to grant a nominal pension if it thought the application was without merit. The Court therefore dismissed the application, costs being allowed the defendant board on the lowest scale.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19211004.2.13

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Taranaki Daily News, 4 October 1921, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
348

COURT OF APPEAL. Taranaki Daily News, 4 October 1921, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL. Taranaki Daily News, 4 October 1921, Page 3

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