THE EDWARDS CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2207, 28 May 1891, Page 3

THE EDWARDS CASE.

Wellington, May 27. In the Appeal Court judgment in the Edwards case was delivered this morning. The Chief Justice’s judgment took an hour in delivery. He considered there was no authority in law for the appointment, and it ought therefore to be cancelled. After delivering his own judgment the Chief Justice said that although he was in favor of the Crown a majority of the Judges was in favor of the defendant. Justices Richmond, Williams, and Dennistoon delivered their judgment in favor of Mr Edwards. Judge Connolly’s judgment was in favor of the Crown

Tht judgment of the Court was entered up for defendant, with coats. The question of appeal to Privy Council was mentioned by Mr Gully, but left over for the present, he undertaking to consult the legal advisers of the Crown on the subject. Chief Justice Peudergast said that although Mr Edwards was appointed Native Land Commissioner, with the powers of a Supreme Court Judge, the intentions of the Legislature evidently lay towards the former, it being understood that he should do temporary service on the Supreme Court bench daring the absence of Mr Justice Richmond. He _ held that there was no authority in law for making the appointment and that it should therefore be cancelled. Judge Richmond said that if the case turned upon the isaae whether the salary promised by the Admistration conld be considered to have been ascertained and established, he should hold, that judgement must go for the Crown, but passing on to the ulterior question of the validity of the patent His Honour took it to be clear that by the original constitution of the three common law courts at Westminster, the number of puisne judges was unlimited, tbeir appointment resting with the Crown, and it would be impossible to argue that the Act of Settlement took away this power of the Oomn. He held that the informant’s objection to the validity of the patent was not well founded and judgment must be for defendant. Judge Williams held that the provisions of the Act of Settlement as to fixing and ascertaining the salaries of

judges are not in force as law in the colony. Even if they were the Act did not prescribe that the salary of a judge mast be absolutely fixed and ascertained by statute at the instant of his accepting office. Judge Conolly agreed with the Chief Justice. He could arrive at no other conclusion than that a Judge of the Supreme Court, when appointed and during good behavior, should have a fixed salary, even if he confined his attention to the Supreme Court Act, 1882. There was really nothing in the contention that there was a contract for the payment of the salary of the Judge, either made verbally with the Premier or by letters. No such contract could be made to bind Parliament, and apart from Parliament there could be no funds to pay the salary. Judge Denniston said that the Governor had, by Commission issued in the name of Her Majesty, appointed the defendant, who possessed the necessary qualifications to be a 3 udge of the Supreme Court, and be did not think this Court could challenge such a Commission. In this Court at least one long and distinguished judicial career had begun and ended with admittedly no better .title than that conferred on Mr Edwards. Judgment must be for defendant. The Appeal Court adjourned until June 17th, when the remaining judgmeats will be delivered.