THE RIGHTS OF THE SUBJECT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1495, 18 July 1912, Page 2

THE RIGHTS OF THE SUBJECT.

CROWN AS LITIGANT. "IX Tlllv ltlvIGN OF JAMES I." A case in which a question was raised affecting the power of a Minister of the Crown came before the Court of Appeal yesterday. On the bench were his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir llobert Stout), Mr. Justice Edwards, and Sir. Justice Sim. The Minister for Customs was the. plaintiff in the case, and the Waihi Goldmining Company, Ltd., was the defendant. Evidence had been given before Sir. Justice Edwards at Auckland, and the case was afterwards removed to the Court of A ppeai. The Solicitor-General (Mr. ,T. W. Salniond) appeared for the Crown, and Slt. C. li. Slorison for the company.

Original Trouble with the Customs. It appeared from the statement of the case that on October 25, 1009, the company imported (and on Slay 18, 1910, cleared through tha Customs) packages described as two "sinking pumps" for mining purposes, of tho value of .£3020, which were declared to bo "sinking pumps," and therefore free from duty. Subsequently tho Collector of Customs at Auckland alleged that the packages vera not "sinking pumps" within tli9 meaning of .the schedule, and that they were two ordinary fixed pumps, which were liable to an ad valorem duty of 20 per cent. Duty .was accordingly assessed on tho packages at tha sum of .£IOO7 12s. 10d., and a claim for that amount was made. Vlaintilt stated that defendants disputed the claim, and refused to pay tha duty. Application was thereupon made by the Collector of Customs to the SI in-1 ister, in accordance with Section 7 of tho Customs Duties Act, 19IIS, to determine the true meaning of the term "sinking pumps." After hearing evidence .at an inquiry the Minister decided Ituit the pumps in question were riot "sinking pumps" within tho moaning of the schedule. The defendant company still refused to pay the duty, which the Crown now claimed. Defendants claimed that when once the Collector of Customs had declared tho packages to bo "sinking pumps" for "mining purposes" ho had no further power or jurisdiction in the matter to refuse, vary, or in amy way alter such decision or determination. Further, it was urged that the Sfinister for Customs, who conducted the inquiry as to the definition of sinking pumps, was liat the Slinister at the tinie of the importation or the determination of liability for duty, and that he had, therefore, no right to conduct such an inquiry.

The Case as it Stands Now. Yesterday Mr. Morison moved for a nonsuit. Counsel nddressed the Court, regarding the power given to the Minister by Section '7 respecting the determination of the meaning of terms in tlie schedule. In this connection two questions were raised: Whether the Minister could decide a dispute to which he himself was a party. Whether tlie function of the Minister was limited to defining the true meaning and general application of the terms used in the schedule, or whether the Act authorised'him to g? further than that and decide, tho question of fact ultimately in issue. Mr. Morison contended that, the Ministor could give n definition of the term, "sinking pumps," but that the Minister could not decide whether a particular artiel'S came Within that' meaning: Tho 'statute said that the Minister was tho plaintiff or the defendant, as fho case might be, in all. actions. Therefore, the Minister was. a litigant. Of oour«, if the statute gave tho Minister, a,' litigant, power to decide tho matter, Ah-. Morison conceded that the statute must be followed. The Chief Justice: Ho is not a litigant, eww.pt as a litigant, for -tho Crown. ■ Mr.'Morison: As ho is a litigant, the Court will not interpret Section 7 as giving him power to decide his own dispute in his own favour, except in so far as the statute expressly gives that power. It was a fundamental principle of justice, continued Mr. Morison, that a person could not be a judge in his own disputes. In the reign of .Tallies I the Judges had solemnly informed the King that the Sovereign could 'not remove a case from the Civil Courts a,'.id decide it. himself: that the Courts of law mu4 deside the eases. Tlie jurisdiction of the Court for the. protection of the subject, counsel added, was not to be ousted . except by the clrarast .possible words. The Minister s view meant _ the creation of a new jurisdiction which would oust the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. If the Minister had merely had to decide whether or not the pumps were exempt, tho. statute would surely have said so; the person who had drawn up the statute had had tlie whole of the English language at his command. Mr. Salmoud contended that the statute showed clearly that the function of the Minister was to determine a. particular dispute, not to givo a definition. Mr. Morison: The mischief would bs enormous if the Minister, having giv?n one delinition to-day, could altei it tomorrow. . The Court reserved its decision. .

MATTER OF SHARES. KING GOLD COMPANY CASE. Appeal was made for the reversal of a decision of Mr. Justice Cooper, in which his Honour had granted an application which had been made by Piiehanl Cock, of New Plymouth, to have Cock's name removed from the list of c.ontributories of the King Goldmining Company, Ltd. (in liquidation). The Bench was occupied by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. .Justice Edwards; Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Sim. In an affidavit. Cock stated that on or about April 18, 1910. he had applied to' the company for fifty .CI shares, and had forwarded the necessary application fee of £2-10s.- He had .not paid (lie first call of Is. pey share, which had fallen due on or about July It. If 10, und no judg-' ment had been obtained against him for the recovery of that first call, lie had subsequently received-notice of a final call of 3s. per share, and notice that ho had been included in the list cf efontributories, and was indebted in the sum of .847 10s. to the company. lie had been advised that the fifty shares had- been forfeited by him through his i:on-pa,vment within twenty-one days after Juno 11, 1010, of the first call. Mr. O. N. Beere appeared for the op. pellant company, and Mi\ C. 11. Treadwell for Cock. After having heard Mr. Beero's address, their Honours reserved their decision, and stated that they would call upon Mr. Treadwell to address the Court if they considered it necessary.