Banished Chiefs’ Appeal Being Heard

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 171, 10 October 1927, Page 13

Banished Chiefs’ Appeal Being Heard

FULL-COURT SITTING SAMOAN PROSECUTION Press Association. WELLINGTON, To-day. The Full Court, consisting of Mr. Justice Sim, Mr. Justice Herdman, ?*ir. Justice Reed. Mr. Justice Adams, and Mr. Justice Ostler, began the hearing to-day of the cases Fuataga v. Inspector of Police of Western Samoa, and Tagaloa v. the same. , Sir J. Findlay, K.C., with Mr. R. E. Harding, appeared for appellants, and Messrs. M. Myers, K.C., and Currie for respondent. The facts are that two natives of Samoa, Tagaloa and Fuataga, were on July 5 last served w r ith decrees of local banishment, ordering them to leave the village of Lalomanga and remain outside the district of Taumasaga for a period of three months. These decrees, issued in pursuance of the Samoan Offenders’ Ordinance of 1922, which gives the Administrator power to make decrees of local banishment, ‘ if he is satisfied that such a course is necessary in the public interest.” On July 7 these two natives were found in Apia, which is within the district of Tuamasaga, in breach of the said order. Accordingly on July 9 they were charged before the court of Samoa with non-compliance with the order, and after pleading not guilty were found guilty, and convicted. It is against' these convictions that Fuataga and Tagaloa are now appealing. As the two cases are similar in every it is proposed to argue only nd that of Tagaloa has been i for the purpose. . V in Findlay, opening the case ffc* ants, said that the powers given the local government of Samoa, .he ordinance of 1922, were of the '“* !st possible nature, but there was no provision requiring an inquiry before a decree of banishment can be made, and it was his intention to show that the ordinance was void on this account, and because it provides a form of punishment not included in the Samoa Act of 1921. He also contended that the Act of 1927. pahsed this session, established crimes unknown to New Zealand law, matrimonial offences for instance.

In reply to a question by Mr. Justice Reed Sir John said that all offences levelled at the good order and government of Samoa, which in general were sedition, were the object of ordinance of 1922. He submitted: (1) That the Act of 1921 is ultra vires of New Zealand legislation. (2) That even if the Samoa Ac" of 1921 is intra vires then the banishment and imprisonment of appellants under the ordinances of 1922 are ultra vires. Sir John claimed that the mandate of the Leagrue of Nations was give:! to the King, and it was the latter who should have legislated for Samoa and not the Gcvernment of New Zealand, which acted beyond its authority and could not go beyond the Constitution Act of 1852. The hearing is proceeding.