LAW AND JUSTICE.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 490, 24 April 1909, Page 10

LAW AND JUSTICE.

Sir/ —In your leading articlo of this morning's issue you.sot forth in an able ' manneri facts that'have arisen in connection with tho distressing caso of Barton v. the King, and, in tho i course of your oommonts mention is made tof tho recent suit of the New Zealand Farmers' Distributing Company, Limited, against tie Crown, as owner of the . local St&teooal depot,: in respect of injury and loss from the ixal dust nuisanoo. From the tenor of your reference it is likely to bo .inferred' that thej-. Farmers' Distributing Company ,received j equitable treatment, and • this is .so directly opposed to the. truth;, that. T have to ask youryjermissi.on.to correct, by a short statement (if the ;facis, the erroneous impression that has no doubt been created • in the minds V..of.::your./numerous-./readers.; ■" ■ Nowi,thstanding'tho fact .that . thecompany. obtained judgment iagainst the Crown in the -case .referred to; it has sustained a loss up .. to tho present exceeding £700, over ' and above tho' amount 1 recovered as_ damages, and is atill suffering from the; continuance of-tho nuisance to the exteiit of £400 per annum. It is . quite -truo. that thi'i Crown agreed'to waive tho provisions of the C,rown\; Suits.. Act : to enable tho' company to state .a; case" for . the Law

Courts, but whatever tho ground for withholding consent to' so obviously just an expedient, this "concession" was obtained only nfteT many months of incessant negotiation, flurina: which the company oxh.iustH ivory other possible means of obtaining redross, and during this-period.of .delay the Joss was continually accumulating. .Tho responsibility for so long withholding consent to a fair hearing in a Court of Law must, of, course, rest with the Minister who was in ' charge or the 'Department. Instead, however, of the promise to waivo tho provisions of the Crown Suits Act being fulfilled in its entirety, ns the company had a right to expect, when tho case carno before the Court, counsel for tho Crown limited tho waiver to the question of damages, and sheltered behind the Act in respect of the 'injunction to restrain the continuance or the. Jiuisance, which would naturally/ have followed the verdict iu the company's favour but for this limitation of waiver, which rould not havo happened had the case been against a private individual or public company. It might be generally assumed that die verdict obtained against the Department would, in tho cirennstances, despite tho deFeat of tho injunction in ,tho manner stated, havo had the effect of preventing a continuance of tho ni'isanco, and it would appear that a common sense of fairness and right'would dictate such a course. Such, however, is not the case,' the-Nuisance still* continuing, and the company is-now-faced r with , tho position that,tho issue of.a further writ is the only means of obtaining rcdiess, end such legal action h only possiblo with the consent of tho Crown, in this caso tho offending party. Repeated requests -to tho Government to enablo this couiso to bo foU; lowed havo'proved unavailing, with the resultthat the "company is in a similar position" to ihe suppliant in thocaio just decided. It is hardly' necessary to'add that the Act in question should, and must bo, amended during tho ooming session of Parliament t<i prevent the recurrence of such a ridiculous

>:V travesty -jof.; justicev jis' is v by - the ■ = case ui-point of a: citizen suffering grievous v.- bodily.'"injury through '110,-fault; of- . his own; and- boing_ deprived-of 'the common ; Tight to ia 1 fair hearing'in a Court of Justice, a privilege which.shpuld always bo: available < to the meanest British subject'.-r-I am,'etc*, > A. LEIGH HUNT, ) _ Manager, N.Z. Farmers' Co-op. Distributing Co.: Ltd! .Wellington, April 23, 1909.