The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING GISBORNE, MAY 2, 1903. JUDGES’ INDIGNATION.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 880, 2 May 1903, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING GISBORNE, MAY 2, 1903. JUDGES’ INDIGNATION.

•So much has been heard lately of the comments of the Privy Council upon the Judges of the New Zealand Appeal Court that people may well wonder what it is all about , and in looking up the full judgment in the Times’ Law Reports, we arc inclined to the belief that, in their well-foun-ded indignation, our Judges have laken Ihe matter too much i o «■ heart. The judgment proeceds : The Solic-itol'-tieneral was made a parly. In his defence, he took a line which must seem somewhat strange to those who were familiar with the administration of charitable trusts in this country. It was the province of the Crown, as parens patriae, to enforce the execution of charitable trusts and it had always been recognised as the duty of the law officers of the Crown 10 intervene for the purpose of protecting charities and affording advice and assistance to the Court iu the administration of charitable trusts. The Solicitor-Gen- | oral, however, adopted a very different course. He seemed to have thought it not inconsistent with the traditions of his high office to attack a charity which it was prim a facie his duty to protect. lie suggested that the Crown was or might, be entitled to the properly. In the event of his failing on that point. which was tlie principal ground of his defence, he submitted a scheme in which the original trusts of the charity were apparently ignored altogether.” Continuing, a wordy statement of the position is given. and then towards the end comes the following paragraph, which is really the crux of the trouble: “The second part of the amendment, to which also the Court seemed disposed to yield, was more extraordinary still. It asserted that ‘ the Executive Government has determined

that any departure from ll;o precise terms of the grant; by the application cy-pres of the . . . iand and funds without the assent of the Parliament of the colony would contravene the terms of the . . . cession and he a breach of the trust thereby confided in the Crown.’ ‘ We - see great difficulty,’ say the learned Judges. • in hold ng that in such circumstances the Court could or ought to interfere.’ The proposition advanced on behalf of the Crown was certainly not flattering to the dignity of the independence of the highest Court in New Zealand or even to the intelligence of ihe Parliament. What had the Court to do with the Executive ? Where there was a suit properly constituted and ripe for decision, why should justice ue denied or delayed at the bidding of the Executive ? Why should the Executive

Government take upon itself to instruct the Court in the discharge of its proper functions ? Surely it was for the Court, not for the Executive, to determine what was a breach oi' trust. Then, attain, what had the Court to do with the prospective action oi Parliament a.-. shadowed forth by the Executive ? No one disputed tne paramount authority oi the Legislature ; within certain limits it was omnipotent. Rut why should it be suggested that Parliament would act better u ll acted in the dark and without allowing the Court to declare and define the rights with which it might be asked to deal ? The present Chief .Justice, who was not a party to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, took a truer view of tinsituation wlien lie said that Die approval oi a scheme could not ‘ m any way hamper either the Government or the Parliament in dealing with this trust.’ In the opinion of llieir Lordships, the respondent iiad been wrong in every step from first to last.’’ It is an astonishing thing that the Privy Council .Judges did not show more care m the choice of their words and the nature oi these comments ; but are their comments really worth the attention paid to them '! it seems to us that our Judges are too sensitive over this matter, and that it would have been better to have been contented with an incisive reply signed by all the •Judges. As things are, the impression is given that the Privy Council lias accused our Judges of some enormity that requires everyone to strenuously and personally light for his own hand. As at present .constituted, it is clear that the Privy Council is quite unadapted to the dispensation of laws affecting the colonies ; but until something better is offering, it is as well to patiently put up with our troubles in that respect.