The Crown Suits Act.

Otago Witness, Issue 2894, 25 August 1909, Page 10

The Crown Suits Act.

TO THE EIJITOB. Sib,— At the recent Dominion Conference of the Farmers' Union held at Wellington the following resolution was unani- J mously adopted: — j I That this conference enters _ its emphatic protest against the injustices that are being perpetrated by the State Coal Department under cover of the Crown Saits Act, as instance the cases of Barton v. the King and the New Zealand Farmers' Co-operative Distributing Company v. thft King, in which grievous bodily injury has been done to a citizen and serious damage to property; and that urgent representations be made to Parliament to award fair compensation for loss sustained, and to amend the Crown Suits Act during the coming session in order to place the State trading enterprises on an equal footing with I private traders in respect of liability for any acts of damage resulting from such operations Although the Press Association telegraphed throughout the Dominion all the other I resolutions of the conference, even those ' of minor importance, it omitted all referi ence to the above matter. I have to re- j ! quest; that you will grant me space to ex- J [ plain the facts leading up to the passing ! lof this resolution in order that your readers may know what an abominable travesty of justice is taking place in a land boasting of fair play and honest administration. | My company, which is a co-operative . association of 900 small farmers, in 1905 j entered into_ a five years' lease of a new , brick building opposite the Town Hall, and adjoining what is now the State Coal Depot, in Victoria street, Wellington. For trade reasons the company, in 1907, removed to another portion of the town. .Since this date every possible means have been taken to re-let the premises vacated, i but on account of £t set ious coal-dust \ nuisance, arising from screening operations at the depot, the building is still unoccupied, causing a loss to the company of near I v £9 per week. Early in 1908 the Minister of Mines was communicated with, with the request that he should either abolish the ruisance or cause the building to bo taken over by the department. The reply was shortly to the effect that " the department recognised no liability." The company's solicitors advised that owing to the provisions of the Crown Suits Act the company was debarred from issuing a writ for damages against the offending department. Parliament was petitioned, but a committee, composed chiefly of Government followers, reported ' that it had no recommendation to make." It is here worthy of note that the committee visited fcho premi^ea and found that the day previous a large portion of the company's building had bo-en entered and carefully hwept of the coal dust forming the basis of the petitionTlio general manaarer of tho depot admitted before the committee having giv«n (f( f

orders to this effect. Two weeks prior to the "general election the company threatened to lay the whole fact* before th» country unless it was given access to the law courts. In 24 hours this right was granted, although it had consistently' refused for six month* previ- us. A writ was issued claiming damages and an injunction, but the- Crown (stremgthened by the fact that the elections wero by this time 9aiely over) narrowed down its " concession " to the question of damages only, denying the- right to apply for an injunction. A verdict of £205. with costs, was given in the company's favour. In the face of this one would have thought that even a State Goal Department would have put its house in order On the contrary, the nuisance continues unabated to this day. Having been denied the right to am injunction (which would undoubtedly have follower the verdict had thesuit been against a public individual), the company's only means of obtaining redress was a series of actions for damages. But this -cannot be done without the consent of the Crown — in this case the offending party, — which consent has been repeatedly refused. The position is, therefore, that the company has now lost an amount of £800 (one-sixth its emtire capital), a.nd i» still suffering to the extent of £*55 per year without any means of obtaining legal redress. This is surely hard enough, but even more grossly unjust is the ease of Tramway Motorman Barton, of this oity, who was a. year ago seriously injured through a collision with the State Coal .swam waggon, and thereby incapacitated for life. He was ruled out of court by the learned juccce owing to the protection atforded to th*> department by the Orown Suit* Act. When his comrades approached the Minister requesting an amendment to this iniquitous act the reply they obtained was. •' We hay© no intention of amKn-dinsr the act. >>ecaus© if we did we should have no end of claims. ' A more monstrous admission for a Minister of the Crow> would surely be 'iard to find, even amonsr the utterances of- those who exercise political licenso >n autocratic RiK^ia. .t may well be asked, why, if such public services as Railway, Iload* and Bridges, Post and Telegraoh Departments are "amenable to the law for any damatfe they may do, what special riaim have the fYKinmon State trading enterprise* fcoal* and oysters) to lmmunitv? • If the State «;es fit to compete with individual* in trad*, then it should undoubteaiy trade on oqua! terms In conclusion Si-, we appeal^ to all •oilrespecting citizen" vnroug .out New Zealand to add thfir weight to the demojid that the eaxlv deliberations of the coming session shall be in the direction of amending this iniquitous statute, otherwise Justice must needs cover up her face, and tyranny tak» a permanent place in the policy of the State. — I am. etc., A. "Leigh ' Hunt, Manager, N.Z. Farmers* Co-op. Distributing Co (Ltd.). Wellington, August 5. 1909.

Mr I#. F. Ayson. ' Chief Inspector of Fisheries, interviewed a* Najjier. said: — " There is no reason why within a few year* we should not be ourselves exporting salmon in lar^e quantities. New Zealand is particularly rich a« regards nvers, especially those which derive their flow from snovrolad mountai-ns — and it is in . this description of river aJone that these' fiah can flcomeih. Thero is no reason why w» should cot have a salmon industry in time equ^l to that of America.*'