APPEAL COURT.
Per Press Assoc ration
WELLINGTON November 2. In tflae case of Hiamkms v. King the Appeal Court held tihat the suppliant is ■entitled to damages by the neglect of tlhe Railway Department to maintain the crossing, and as there was no oontivbutory negligence, the award of £450 .will itlherefore stand. In Oooksley and another v. Johnson (and another, a question of icopyriighlt in a race card, t)he Court iheld. that there was no evidence of fraud, and (that the claim for infringement could-not 'be sustained, as ithe card was published rather earlier tlhan the official oard. In the Plimaner v. PLim'mer case, under the Testator's Family Madnitenaiice Act, the Court directed :thaffc at be re-argued, and f urtfher parties joined to the case.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WC19051103.2.19
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12644, 3 November 1905, Page 5
Word count
Tapeke kupu
125APPEAL COURT. Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12644, 3 November 1905, Page 5
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
NZME is the copyright owner for the Wanganui Chronicle. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of NZME. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in