Court of Appeal.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXIII, Issue 7365, 12 November 1898, Page 3

Court of Appeal.

(by telegkaph.) Wellington, November 12. The Court of Appeal this morning held that no appeal lay from the deciaion of the judges sitting as a Supreme Court in the Hatama Estate case. The Court considered that the provisions of the Public Works Act indicate that in referring a case to the Supreme Court the Compensation Court merely consults the Supreme Court. The Compensation Court was not bound to do so, and if the president himself decides a question of law it is clear that no appeal lies. It would be an absurdity to hold that an appeal would lie in cases in which the president acted on the opinion of the Supreme Court, whilst none lay in the case of a decision by the president himself, who in some cases need not be a lawyer. The Court, therefore, dismissed the application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council.

The appeal in the case of Finlay v. Bishop and another was dismissed with costs on the lowest scale as from a distance. The Court held that there was no fact preliminary to the jurisdiction which it was necessary for a magistrate to find, and the matter was, therefore, not one for prohibition. In the case of Featherston Road Beard v. Tate, which was of considerable interest to cyclists, the appeal Court allowed the appeal.

The Court held that a local body was entitled to erect barriers to protect holes in roads which it is in course of repairing, or is unable for the time being to repair, and is not liable for injuries caused by such barriers unless they are caused by negligence in maintaining or repairing same. If a local body had done all that under the circumstances it could reasonably be expected to do then it had not been negligent. The magistrate had found that it was not reasonable to expect the barrier in question to be lighted, looking to its position and to the means at the disposal of the Boad Board. Tjje Court was bound by this finding and the appeal was therefore allowed with costs. In the case of the Bank of Australasia and Oldham v. the North German Insurance Company the Court held that a txußt of the statements in proposal had been established, and that alleged misstatement had not been proved. The Court therefore gave judgment for the plaintiffs for L 750, with interest and costs on the highest scale. "The Court intimated that judgment in the remaining cases, except the Bank of New Zealand v. Fleming, would probably be delivered on Monday morning.