TINKERING WITH LAWS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 11, 1 June 1914, Page 2

TINKERING WITH LAWS.

ALTERATION IN CONSOLIDATION. | By Telegraph—Press Association. Dunedin,, May 30. This morning Mr Justice Sim delivered judgment in a matter of arbitration; between Frederick Bryant and others and Robert McArthur Thomson and James Hunter Thomson, an application under section 6 of the Arbitration Act, 1908, for the appointment of an umpire. The arbitrators appointed to settle the questions in regard to a lease of a parcel of land were unable to agree on the appointment of an umpire, and the court was asked to make the appointment. In the course of a lengthy judgment, his" Honor said: "Serious alteration nas been made by the Act of 1908 in the definition of submission in the Act of 1890. In that Act, "submission" means written agreement to eutaiit present lor future differences to arbitration, whether the arbitrator is named therein or not. This is the definition of the Act of 1908: "Submission" means a written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration, whether the arbitrator is named therein or not, or under which any question or matter is to be decided by one or more pesons to

be appointed by ontracting painties, or by some person named in the agreement. These additional words alter consider-

ably the soope of the Act, and appear to bring under its provisions all written agreements for valuations. The result is that unless otherwise agreed refer-

ence must he conducted aB arbitration under the provisions of the Act, and it is. not necessary for the umpire to be himself a, valuer. It is rather startling to find that such a change in this law should have been affected in the guise

of consolidation. It is not referred to in the final report of the Consolidation •Ooamusmonena, and this feat suggests that the cWange was made without their knowledge.» The omission must have teen made deliberately, and by some person who was «o ignorant of the subject of arbitration as not to know the difference between an umpire and a third arbitrator. The report made by the Commissioners on 28th July, 1908, throws an interesting light on the question of tie authorship of this change. The Arbitration Act evidently must have been included in that volume of Consolidated Statutes which was sought to be imposed on the Commissioners at the outset of their labors. This, they say, was mbre in the nature of a code than consolidation, and entangled them in much needless labor. They had to spend much time and trouble in revising and restoring "the text of Acts. The present condition of the Arbitration Act shows plainly that their efforts in this direction were not always successful. How many more similar "improvements" have been made surreptitiously in the statute law of the land, time alone will disclose.