INTERCOLONIAL LEGISLATION

New Zealand Mail, Issue 16, 13 May 1871, Page 3

INTERCOLONIAL LEGISLATION

[Daily Telegraph, 19 th April.] The select committee of the Legislative Assembly on intercolonial legislation, which was appointed a Royal commission during the recess, has prepared its report. The document is signed by Sir Francis Murphy, Mr MacPherson, Mr Duffy, Mr Macgregor, Mr Kerferd, Mr Casey, and Mr Smith. Mr Fellows is absent from the colony, and Mr Higinbotham declined to act. We give below the principal recommendations ; SURRENDER OF CRIMINALS. We recommend that the procedure relating to extradition should be so far simplified as that warrants issued by magistrates in any colony for the apprehension of persons charged with an extradition crime may be hacked by magistrates in any other colony, and upon being so backed may be executed in the same manner as a county warrant in England would be if backed and executed out of the county where it was issued. INSOLVENCY. We are of opinion that a surrender of an estate in one colony should, under certain restrictions, operate as a surrender in all, ana a certificate granted in one should be pleadable in all. For the purposes of proof of debts and examination of insolvent, if necessary, there should be a comity existing between the several Supreme Courts, whereby the proceedings of each court, in respect of a particular insolvency, would be re garded and considered by every court when granting or refusing the certificate, and that the refusal by one court would necessarily render the insolvent uncertificated in all the colonies. When a person became insolvent in one colony —say in Victoria—the property in all can bo administered by our court, unless the proceedings be transferred to the court of some other colony. Power to do so should be specially provided for, and a concurrent jurisdiction should be given to all superior courts in all matters of insolvency. As soon as the Victorian court ascertains that the insolvent’s estate and creditors chiefly exist in New South Wales, it should be empowered to transfer the whole cause to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The insolvent would have to go to Sydney, for he could only obtain his certificate from the New South Wales court, and, until granted, he would be an uncertificated insolvent. A certificate granted by any Supreme Court should be pleadable throughout Australasia, in the same manner as if the certificate had been granted in the colony where it wonld be pleaded; that is to say, not to give it the same effect all over the colonies as it would have if it were granted, but only the effect provided by the laws of the colony where pleaded. This would avoid any conflict of laws that may exist. It is hoped the day is not far distant when there will be a uniform insolvency law throughout Australasia. COURT OF APPEAL. Considerations of grave importance suggest the expediency, if not the necessity, that a court of appeal, formed of colonial judges, should be established for the Australasian colonies. The cost and delay occasioned by appeals to the Privy Council would be removed. Judges conversant with colonial life, manners, and laws, would adjudicate on matters presenting peculiar and distinctive features—the result of colonial habits, industries, and trade. The decisions of the various Supreme Courts of the colonies, upon purely colonial affairs would thereby be brought into harmony, and uniformity of law be thus encouraged, to the great advantage of commerce. The first effective step to wards the union and consolidation of the colonies would thus, it is thought, be consummated. We recommend that a Court of Appeal for Australasia be formed, consisting of one judge from each colony, and that the Court should sit in each colony successively, or at

such places as may be determined upon as occasion required; and that the quorum be regulated in proportion to the number of colonies that appointed judges. On the pronouncing of a judgment by the Court of Appeal, similar machinery might be employed in carrying out its decisions as is now used with respect to appeals to the Privy Council. Another question arises as to How far the Court of Appeal is to be one of final determination, excluding the appeal to her Majesty in Council. We deem it advisable to leave to the Legislature of each colony to determine that queston for itself, by empowering the colonies to enact suitable laws providing the case in and the terms upon which an appeal may be had to the Queen.