APPEAL COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 11 October 1927, Page 2

APPEAL COURT

BY TELEGRAPH —DRESS ASSN., COPYRIGHT,

WELLINGTON, Oct- 10,

Sir J. Findlay, in opening for the appellants, said the Powers given to the local Government of Samoa by the Ordinance of 1922 were of the widest possible nature, but there was no provision requiring an inquiry before the decree of banishment can he made, and it was his intention to show the ordinance was void oil this account, and because it provides a form of punishment not included in the Samoan Act of 1921. He also contended the act of 1927, passed this session established crimes unknown to New Zealand law, the matrimonial offence for instance.

In reply to a question by-Justice Reed, Sir J. Findlay said all the offences were levelled at good order and the Government of Samoa which were in general sedition, were the object of the ordinance of 1922. He submitted, (1) the Samoa Act of 1921 is ultra vires of New Zealand legislation; (2) that even if the Samoan Act 1921 is not ultra vires then the banishment and imprisonment -of the appellants under the ordinances of 1922 are ultra, vires. Sir J. Findlay claimed the mandate of the League of Nations was given to the King and it was the latter who should have legislated for Samoa and not the Government of New Zealand, which acted beyond its authority and could not go beyond the Constitution Act, 1853. Continuing his argument Sir John Findlay said that the Imperial Peace Act (1919) under which the mandate was given to New Zealand, did not extend the jurisdiction of any colonial power, and no order under it could do so. He also contended that the Foreign Jurisdiction Act (1890) had no bearing on the case, as the mandates had never been thought of when it was passed. As to the act of 1921, even if ultra vires, he argued that the ordinance of 1922 was not, as the parties against whom it was exercised had been- given no opportunity to appear. That Act. moreover, contained no provision empowering the local Government of Samoa to inflict the punishment of banishment. This penalty differed entirely from the previously exercised by the tribal authorities of Samoa. The fact that the Act of 1927 made express provision for banishment went to show that the Crown Law' Office was aware that the ordinance was ultra vires.

Mr Harding, in support, also argued the point that the ordinance was invalid. The Magna Charta and Habeas Corpus Act gave all British subjects the right of trial, and this was taken away from the Samoans.

Mr Myers, opening for the defence, said that the appellants, while invoking the jurisdiction of the Court for their relief, were endeavouring to show it had no jurisdiction. Their proper course was to go to the Court of the King’s Bench. The hearing was adjourned.