PORIRUA CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 875, 27 April 1903, Page 2

PORIRUA CASE.

Very strong protests have been made by the New Zealand .Judges against the Privy Council remarks upon the judgment of the New Zealand Appeal Caurt, implying that the (loveniinent had interfered in tlie matter. A long message has been received from the Press Association, giving the remarks of the indignant Judges. The Chief Justice thus concludes a long statement on the subject “ Any person reading their Lordships’ remarks would assume this Court had declined jurisdiction, had denied justice, and h a d lost its dignity and independence through dread of the executive Government, 'these imputations are baseless, and I hardly think it becoming in the highest tribunal of the Empire to make such charges against any Court unless they are conclusively proved.’’ He stated further : Their Lordships do nor attempt to answer the pertinent question the Court of Ap-

peal asked, or meet the argument used, but indulge in language happi 1; rare in judicial judgments given in tin

colony. Whether it is a fitting tiling ft the highest Imperial tribunal to mal such untoundrd aspersions is not for ti to say. I feel the aspersions under tt circuiustauces in which they have bee made are a greater reflection on til Privy Council than on the Appeal Cou ot Mow Zealand.” Sir It. Stout explain that he was not a party to the Appe Court's judgment. The attitude he toe

up was approved by the Pri\v Council, j hut he fee is that when the Court of which j he has the honor to be president is at- j tacked by such a body as the I-’rivy I Council it is his duty to explain the posi- j tion to his fellow-colonists. Alter thus j defending the Court over the Pcrirua ! ease, he states that this is not the

only judgment that the Privy Council has pronounced under misapprehension or in ignorance of our local laws, 411,1 briefly refc-rs to the case Plimmer v. Corporation of Wellington, Redes v. .Mills, and Tamain v. Baker. In tin last lie says the Council was ignorant of the date when we became a sell governing company, and of the laws regarding Native lands. Ii the dicta in that case were given effect to no land title in the colony would be safe. Sir Robert Stout considers this ignorance of real laws and customs a very serious matter, and likely to weaken the true bond cf union among His Majesty’s subjects. As far ns New Zealand is concerned, the Privy Council has •shown it knows not our statutes, our ; conveyancing terms, or our history. Justice Williams said their Lordships had thought proper to make reference of a kind which had never been used by the Supreme Court to an interior Court in modern times. The result was to create distrust of the Court of Appeal, and he protested publicly against the attack made upon it. He had had the honor of being a Judge of this Court for 28 years. He had seen Governments cniuc and go, but

never had ire known a Government attempt in the slightest degree to interfere with the independence of the Court in the exercise of its judicial functions, or that the Court had shown want of indepen-

dence or subserviency to the executive Government. The Judges in New Zealand were exposed to a public opinion as

vigilant and criticism as keen as the Judges in England. No suggestion of the kind contained in their Lordships’ judgment had ever been made here, and it had been reserved for four strangers silting 14,0U0 miles away to make it. It the Court retained the conlideuce of the people of the colony that was sufficient. Mr Justice Edwards, in tiie course of some vigorous remarks, said he coucurred hi Mr Justice Williams’ protest, and added that their decisions must continue to be reviewed, but whether by the Judicial Committee as at present constituted is a question worthy oi consideration, for it lias displayed every characteristic alien to a tribunal. We speak under grievous and unexampled provocation. Air Justice Edwards, who was not one of tho Judges whose decision was reversed, delivered a short reply in general terms. He mentioned that if some of the Privy Council judgments wore acted on, the titles of real estate would he thrown into irretrievable confusion. If there wore any foundation for the charges of Privy Council then the Judges against whom they were levelled ought to be removed from a position of which they had proved thomseives unworthy. Tho action of the Privy Council was calculated to strike a blow at the unity of tho Empire. Mr Travers said ho wished, on behalf of the bar (which was largely represented in Court), to state the leeliug always entertained by the bar of New Zealand as regarded the superior tribunal before which tiiey had been honored to practice. It was riot likely to be, and certainly had not been, in any degree shaken as regarded their view of tho integrity of the Court. They felt that in practising before tho Bench, whether the Supreme Court or tile Court of Appeal over since its institution, that ttie judgments propounded by the Judges, whether individually or collectively, bad been characterised by tho utmost integrity, and by knowledge of law and regard for fact which are necessary in dealing with the questions that caino before them. It was their desire that the protest made by the Judges of the Court of Appeal should bo supported in every point by the members of the bar.