COURT OF APPEAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2558, 20 July 1909, Page 5

COURT OF APPEAL.

A RAILWAY CLASSIFICATION CASE.

(Pica PaicHß Ahrooiation. 1 WELLINGTON, July 20. In tho Appeal Court to-day, tho--hearing of the case of John Douds v. the Minister for Railways was commenced. This was originally a summons under the Declaratory Judgments Act, o removed to the Court of Appeal by consent. Plaintiff is a railway guard, who had served! 14 years, interrupted by a break; from April, 1899, to March; i9OO. Tho classification list only credits him with eight years’ service, and he claims to count the full period. Mr. . Skerrett, K.C., and Mr. Ostler appeared for plaintiff; and Professor Salmond for defendant. Mr. Skerrett contended that service meant the number of years plaintiff has served added together, whether continuous or not. He analysed tho various Acts at length to show that this was the intention of the ’ > Legislature. \ Mr. Skerrett contended that there was nothing in the Government Railways Superannuation Fund Act, 1902; or in the Government Railways classification Act, 1901, or any of the amendments to either Act, showing that the Legislature did not intend the word “service,” when used in those Acts, to include non-continuous service. Sections 55 and 56 of the Public Service Classification and Superannuation Amendment Act, 1908, were, passed under the mistaken assumption that service meant only continuous service, but those sections had no effect in enacting the mistake of the Legislature as law. ! Mr. Ostler also addressed the Court, citing authorities to show that the word “service” used in the Act prima facie included non-continuous service.

Professor Salmond, on behalf of . the defendant, admitted that “service” used in an Act of Parliament prima facie included broken service, but contended, first, that there was sufficient indication of the intention of the Legislature in the Acts of 1901 and 1902 and their amendments to show that continuous service only was to be counted; and, secondly, that even if that was not so, the effect of sections 55 and 56 of the Act of 1908 was to enact that only continuous service should count.

Mr. Skerrett replied, and the Court reserved judgment,' adjourning till 10 a.in. to-morrow, when the ease of the -District Land Registrar v. Snow will be taken.