THE EDWARDS DEFENCE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2199, 12 May 1891, Page 4

THE EDWARDS DEFENCE.

The defence to the motion against Mr J uslico Edwards was filed last IViday 'i he defendant denies that “ She Civil last Act, 1863, Amendment Act, 1873,” in any respect dealt with or affected the appointment of Judges, as alleged. He sets up the Governor’!-, commission, and alleges that it in in the same form as all the other Judge;-’ commissions. He points out that THE ORIGINAL PHEPOSE

of the appointment was in connection with the Native Lands Commission. Soon after the close of the session of 1889, the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs waited upon Mr Edwards to ascertain whether ho would accept a Commissiimership, naming £7OO and travelling allowances as the remuneration, with liberty to continue to practice as a solicitor. He informed the Under-Secretary his books showed be was making an income of £2250 par annum, and it was not probable toat he would accept the Commissionsrship unless he received the same salary as a Supremo Court Judge, and was allowed to practice his profession so far as possible. He would consider the offer. He heard nothing till Oct. 14, 1889, when the Native Minister sent for him and formerly offered a Commissionership at £1260 a year, and £1 Is per day allowance, with liberty for private practice, it being estimated that the work of the Comtnission would last from five to ten years, ; he defendant replied that since ha had seen the Under-Secretary, a change had taken place in his business, and it was hardly likely that he could accept the appointment. If lie did so, he did not think he could accept less than he had already stated. After consideration he decided to appointment, provided that he had the emoluments of a Judge of the Supreme Court, and a guarantee of three year’s engagement. The Minister was under stood to leave Wellington without replying. Meantime the defendant considered the matter, and concluded that his acceptance of the office would result in his retirement from practice, and also that it was improper on public grounds that a Commissioner should be a barrister in practice. On Nov. 16, 1889, he definitely declined the office, eten though the Government should offer what he had asked for. After some lapse of time, on Eeb. 20, 1890, Sir Harry Atkinson sent for defendant, and offered him a Supreme Court Judgeship, with a Commissionership, at the same salary and allowances as the other puisne Judges. The offer was accepted, and on March 6 defendant receiyed his commission. Defendant submits that his negotiation and correspondence constituted

A CONTBACT binding on the Crown, whereby his salary as a Judge was ascertained and established. He therefore denies that no salary was ascertained and established for him as alleged, and denies that Parliament had refused to vote a salary for him as Judge. In the session of iB9O a minority of thu House so far obstructed business, that, in order to save the great public loss and inconvenience arising from a dissolution by effluxion of time, Ministers had to submit to the withdrawal of the word “Judge” in the Estimates. Thereupon his salary as a Commissioner was passed. At the same time the ’Minister in charge declared that the Ministry could not, and would not, interfere with the defendant’s discharge of the duties of a Judge, and would pay to defendant his full salary of £isoo a year. Defendant was paid full salary as Judge, not as Commissioner, up to March 31 last. He says the present Government caused him to be removed from office, notwithstanding that there were many matters —several of which had been hoard, but -not finally adjudicated upon then pending before the Commissioner. Finally, the defendant claims that his commission is in full force, and has been in no respect impeached, nullified, cancel led or suspended. He submits that he is now lawfully a puisne J udge. In chambers on Saturday before Hia Honor the Chief Justice, Mr Gully, as one of the counsel for the Attorney-General in the suit to test Judge Edwards’ position, moved for the removal of the case into the Appeal Court for argument. Had there been any opposition the hearing could not. have been set down for the present session of the court, but as Mr Harper consented to removal, His Honor made ( an order accordingly.