( 222 )
ARNOLIS v. LE WISH AMY.C. R., TangaUa, 1,187.
Appeal from judgments of Courts of Requests— -Petition when to bepresented—Ordinance No. 12 of 1895, s. 13.
In the case of an appeal from a judgment of a Court of Request*?,the petition must be presented to the Court below within theperiod fixed by the Civil Procedure Cede, whether the appeal beas of right or with leave as provided for by section 13 of the Courts-of Requests Amendment Ordinance, 1895.
'J'HE facts of the case appear in the order.
25th August, 1896. Withebs, J.—
This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment ofMr. Commissioner Steen in an action to recover a sum of Rs. 50,alleged to be the price agreed to be paid by defendant to plaintiff,but hot paid, for an almirah alleged to be sold and delivered by thedefendant to the plaintiff.
• * Section 21 of Ordinance No. 3of 1876 :—In determining theamount of compensation to beawarded for land acquired underthis Ordinance, the district judgeand assessors shall take intoconsideration—
First, the market value at thetime of awarding compensationof such land.•
Secondly, the damage (if any)sustained by the person interestedat the time of awarding compen- .sation, by reason of severing suchland from his own land.
Thirdy, the damage (if any)sustained by the person interestedat the time of awarding compen-sation by reason of the acquisitiohinjuriously affecting the 'otherproperty, whether movable orimmovable, in any other manner,or his earnings ; and
Fourthly, if in consequence ofthe acquisition he is compelledto change his residence, . thereasonable expenses (if any) inci-dental to suoh change.
( 223 )
After hearing the evidence of- plaintiff the Court came to theconclusion that he had failed to prove his claim.* August 25.
After delivery of judgment plaintiff applied to the Court for Wjthkbs, J.leave to appeal.
n The plaintiff did not prefer any matter of law, nor did he complainof improper admission or rejection of evidence.
Wishing, as I gather from his petition to this Court, to appeal ontiie ground that the judgment was against-the weight of evidence,he applied to the Court for leave to appeal.
The Court of Bequests Amendment Ordinance of 1895 does notIndicate the mode of procedure to be adopted whena party desiresto appeal from a judgment in the Court of Bequests. I imagine,however, that the rules of the Civil Procedure Code must be takento apply when circumstances warrant an appeal; that is to say,if the matter of the application is within the exception containedin the 13th section of the Ordinance the petition must be presentedto the Court below within the period fixed by the Civil ProcedureCode.
If a defendant desires to appeal on other grounds I presume thathe must obtain leave, and if he obtains leave he must present hispetition within the same period.
In this particular case I think that the Commissioner was rightin refusing leave to appeal.
The question at issue was a simple question of fact, and theCommissioner found himself unable to credit the case put forwardby. the plaintiff. This petition is accordingly rejected.
ARNOLIS v. LEWISHAMY