APPEAL COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 12 October 1927, Page 1

APPEAL COURT

BY TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSN., COPYRIGHT. WELLINGTON, Oct. 11. Air M. Myers, continuing, said that tho Order in Council was addressed to the (Executive of New Zealand and not to the Government as such; so that, even if the Government had no power to legislate, f tho. administration of Samoa by New Zealand is still valid, the Executive being tho agents of His Alajesty. On either ground, tho substratum of his learned friend’s case must go.

Referring to the -contention that the Ordinance of 1922 was repugnant to the Act of 1921, he argued that there was no ground for it. Clause 3 of the Ordinance gave tlio Administration power to order local banishment for offences which were not legal, but political offences, and not punishable ns breaches of the Act of 1921. He quoted numerous authorities to show the exercise of this discretion was administrative and that the Court could not review the Administrator’s actions. There was no foundation for the contention that the Ordinance of 1922 should he read in the light of the Act of 1927. The latter was merely intended to codify the existing criminal law of Samoa. Mr Currie, following Mr Myers, briefly outlined the course followed by the New Zealand Government in reporting to the Ijeague of Nations. After Sir J. Findlay had replied, the Court reserved its decision.