CONDUCT OF A JUDGE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1575, 19 October 1912, Page 9

CONDUCT OF A JUDGE.

. PETITION TO PARLIAMENT. NOT RECEIVED- ; ■ STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER. In tho Uouso of Representatives yesterday afternoon, Mr. Speaker gave liis decision on' tho-poiut -riubmittc(l to liini by the member for Auckland East, Mr. Myers, in regard to a petition presented by liini, which reflected upon tho conduct of a Judge of the Supreme Court in tho discharge of his official duties. Ho called tho attention of members of tho House to tile Judicature Act, under which judges wero appointed. This Act: provides Hint the commissions of judges should continuo in force during good behaviour, notwithstanding the demise of the sovereign, but it provided also that it should he lawful for his Majesty, on receipt of an address from both Houses of Parliament) to remove from oilice or to suspend any judge. It was important in dealing with the question, he said, that the House should bear in mind thai: the functions which a judge had to perform were functions which he ought to lie allowed to carry out without reflections being mado upon his conduct. When a petition came before Parliament reflecting upon the conduct of a judge, the House should 1)0 fully informed that the proper procedure had been taken. Ho quoted from authorities which laid it down that the House should not entertain such a petition unless gross lniscouduct were alleged, and it was further laid down that the Ministry of the day should investigate tho case and say whether it was a proper one to be investigated by the House. ITe had carefully read tho petition, which Was signed by several citizens of Now Zealand, including tho gentleman who alleged that he had been aggrieved by a remark of tho Judge during the hearing of a civil action in Auckland, and ho could find nothing in that petition which would justify (he House in passing a resolution recommending his Majesty to remove the Judge from office. He held si memorandum from the Prime Minister and from tho Actiiig-Attorney-General (the Attor-ney-General having been indisposed at tho time), and they had informed him that they had perused tho petition, and that in. their opinion tho matters referred to in it, even assuming that they were correctly stated in every respect; were not such as could possibly justify an address by Parliament to his Excellency for the removal of the Judge concerned. This l>eing the case, he thought it was his duty to rnlo that the petition could not •be received. Ho would therefore return the petition to Mr. Myers, the honourable member who had presented it.