COURT OF APPEAL.

Taranaki Daily News, 28 March 1917, Page 6

COURT OF APPEAL.

SEDITION CASES, By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, March 27. The Full Court sat to-day to hear the appeals by Semple, Brindle, Eraser, Cook and Thorne against their convictions for seditious utterances. The grounds, briefly, are that the War Herniations Act is ultra vires in so fur as the regulations expect things beyond the power of the New Zealand Parliament, that power being limited by the Constitution Act to making laws for the good Government of New Zealand; that the Military Service Act is also ultra vires, in purporting to control or compel the cervices of persons beyond New Zealand; that the regulations' of December 4. 1916, are ultra vires; that if the War Regulations Act is valid, the regulations of December 4, made under it, creating sn offence of a seditious tendency is invalid ; that the convictions following thereon are bad in including more than one offence; that appellants were denied the right of trial bv a jury; and that finally as a matter of law none of the alleged seditious utterances, taken with the contents of the whole speech, cone within the meaning of the crime of sedition. Mr. (3. Hutchison is for nppslhnts ond the Solicitor-General for the Crown. The argument is likely to be lengthy. Wellington, Last Night.

Arguing in support of his contention that the Military Service Act, lillfi, was beyond the powers of Parliament as set out in the Constitution Act, 1852, Hutchinson said Parliament could only legislate for persons within New Zealand, and had no power to compel persons to serve abroad. He said the only Imperial Parliament could give, by altering the Constitution Act, power to pass such a law, With regard to the regulations made under the War Regulations Act, 1014, he contended that as they dealt with offences beyond the colony they were ultra vires. He also submitted that the regulations purported to create the new offence of seditious tendency. This could not be done, as sedition was defined by the Crimes Act. 190S, and all seditious offences must be dealt- with under that Act. Regulations could not alter or vary the Crimes Act. With regard to the trial by jury, lie contended that the War Regulations Act, 1!)14, did not exclude the right to trial by jury, but only excluded the necessity of the presentment of an indictment. He analysed the speeches upon which the convictions were founded, and contended that the speeches would not bear the construction put upon them by the magistrate. Sir Robert Stout said the magistrate would not have been honest if he had come to any other conclusion.

Mr. Justice Chapman asked whether, if it were possible for Germany to have for paid agents as eloquent speakers in New Zealand as she had done in Russiii and in other countries, so as to try to weaken the military forces or undermine the power of the Government, Germany would not want anything better for her purposes than the speeches under discussion.

Mr. Hutchinson replied that it would have been better if the speeches had not been made, but what he was trying ito do was to show that the speeches did not offend against the regulations, and that, taking a wide and liberal vieiv of the speeches, the convictions could not be sustained by court.

Further argument Agas adjourned till 10.30 to-morrdw when the . SolicitorGeneral will present his argument on behalf of the Crown.