COLONIAL APPELLATE TRIBUNALS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8182, 15 August 1906, Page 3

COLONIAL APPELLATE TRIBUNALS.

LAW SOCIETY'S BEPLY TO RIR BOBKRT STOUT. REASONS FOB RETAINING PBTVY COUNCIL. Per Press Association. W ELLINGTON, August 12. The Council of the New Zealand Law Society have just issued the following: "The attention of the New Zea'and Law Society has necessarily been railed to the recent suggestions against the continuance of the right of appeal to His Majesty-in-Council. The Council have endeavoured by official communications with the several district Law Societies and by unofficial personal discussion with many members of the Bar practising m different parts of the colony, to ascertain the opinion of the profession of the law in the colony on the subject, and they are satisfied that in the resolutions which follow they have given expression to that opinion, and that the profession is practically unanimous in supporting their action. The council are aware that they hava the misfortune to differ from the yiews expressed by His Honor the Chief Justice. His Honor granted an interview to a committee of the Bar and explained to them his reasons, which, His Honor stated, would be found set forth in his article in the Commonwealth Review vol. 2, number 1, September-October 1904, entitled "Appellate Tribunals for the Colonies." It is not merely under a sense of conventional duty that the Council express their, regret that they are unable to yield to His Honor's a-gu.. Hunts. They recognise the weight which must properly attach to the opinion of one holding the high office of Chief Justice, and their respect for Sir Robert Stout personally is sincere and unfeigned, but such considerations tend to increase the danger, that it may be thought beyond the limits of the colony that His Honor voices the general sentiment of the profession and of the public. Th.' Council have passed the annexed resol i: hns, a draft ot which wai submitted to and approved by the district liw societies throughout the colony. They propose to transmit copies of them to the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General of England, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies. 1. The barristers and solicitors practising in New Zealand are practically unanimous in their opinion that the full right to appeal to His Majesty-in-Council from the Courts of the Olony, as at present existing, should be preserved. 2. In this opinion, the members of the profession have reason to believo that they are supported by all concerned in the commerce of the colony. 3. The delays referied to by His Honor the Chief Justice are only in part due to the practice of the Judical Committee. It is well known that where solicitors and counsel for both parties, in the colony and in England, use due expedition, an appeal may be lodged and disposed of within reasonable time. 4. The Council and the profession consider it a privelege and advance that a Court constituted of the greatest lawyers cf the Empire, should sit as a Court of ultimate appeal in matters arising between litigants in this colony and such privilege and advantage should not be lightly abandoned. 5. Absolute freedom from local environment is a special advantage of the high tribunal which sits in Lindon. It is no reflection on Judicial impartiality to say that circumstances occur in which an ultimate decision in London would give greater satisfaction than that of a colonial tribunal. 6. The uniformity of the Law of the Empire on many important subjects can be maintained only by the establishment of such a tribunal as the Privy Council. Matters of banking Law, partnership Law, the principles of Equity, the principles of construction of such Statutes as the Land Transfer Act in force in the various colonies are instances only of the td vantage here indicated 7. Tht principle of limit of value for appeal as of right is recognised in appeal from the inferior Courts to our own Supreme Court, and can scarcely therefore be used as an argument against an appeal from this colony to England. Moreover, that limit docs not prevent special leave being granted in England. 8. It seems probable that practice and procedure of the Judicial Committee could be simplified, and the expense of appeal thereby reduced, but such considerations afford no sufficient ground for the abolition of the historic right of appeal of the King's subjects, from the King's Colonial Courts to the King-in-Council.