(Fkk Ukitkd Phess Association.) j Wellington', July 31. In the Appeal Court, in the case of Miller v. Dany (a Napier case), the court held that the Land Transfer department was not responsible for an error in issuing the writ. Iv the case of Ransom v. Fildes (Blenheim) a"n order was made for a new trial on the grounds of misdirection. In the case Hankey v. the Queen, the Chief Justine and Mr Justice Richmond decided that under tho Civil Service Act the officers of the Public Works department are entitled to com pensation for loss of office. [The_case of Hankey ia an important one. practi cally affecting the whole civil Bervice of the colony. Mr Hankey claimed compensation for the loss of his office of district manager of the Napier section of the New Zealand railways, to which he was ap pointed by Sir John Hall on 6th June 1881, and in which he continued until the 2sth June 1889, when the provisions of "Tha Government Railways Act 1887 " were brought into force, by which the present railway commissioners were constituted. He de sired to retire from the service of the commissioners, and he alleged that up to the date of their taking office he was in the civil service of the colony, and by sub-section i, section 62, of the Government Kiilways Act of 1887, he has ceased to be in that service. He therefore claimed compensation under " The Civil Service Act 1866 " and amending acts for the loss of his office.]

BELIEF FOE CROWN TENANTS.
