The Wairarapa Daily. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1885. A CURIOUS DECISION.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 2178, 23 December 1885, Page 2

The Wairarapa Daily. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1885. A CURIOUS DECISION.

We have now before us the full report of the desision given by Mr Preece, K.M., in the Salvation Army cases at Napier, and as the reasons which were given by the Magistrate affect not only oil boroughs and other local bodies in the Colony, but also Parliament, a few conjmetjts should not be out of place, The history of the ease is a very simple one, The .Borough ,Council of Napier had, rightly or wrongly, ,cpm,e to the conclusion that the Salvation Army was causing a nuisance by marching i through the town, The same subjeat had been considered in various other boroughs in the colony, but the conclusion always arrived at was that there was no power under which they could frame a by-law to prohibit the processions, The Napier Borough Council, however, took the bull by the horns, and passed a by-law, according to which no procession .should be allowed to march through tjje fop without permission from the Council. The Salvation Army took no notice of this, and on the Sunday following the day on which the by-law was to come into operation, marched out as usual, with banners, band, and torches. The natural result was that informations were laid against the principal participators in the procession, who were brought up on a charge of creating a nuance, The Magistrate took time to consider tlje matter! and then,gave one of the ijjo&t .extraordinary decisions we have ever heard of, He was of opinion that the Borough Council had power to make a by-law foi" the purpose of preventing a nuisance or stopping, annoyance to the public, butsnid that power should be exercised. reasonable manriei. It will he observed tha.fc jbjie assertion contained in the first of these sentences is indirect opposition to the advice received by other Borough Councils from their solicitors, so far as the processions of the Salvation Army are concerned, while the second opens the very wide question of "What is reasonable?" The Magistrate, according to the Telegraph, proceeds to say: " The citizens might want to have a procession similarly, and was it reasonable that the" should have to wait for permission for a meeting of the Council ] He thought the power of granting permits should be vested in the Mayor, and the fact of its not being so would tend to breaches thereof. The by-law was therefore unreasonable and void, and the cases would be dismissed." The want of reason mi-the ' part the

opinion, clearly to be found in the fact that the Council did' not vest the power to grant permits for processions in its Chairman or one of its officers, There would be no difficulty in raking up any number of Acts of Parliament ■ which are far less reasonable that the by-law referred to, Would Mr Preece venture to give a similar decision with regard to them 1 Has he not laid down an entirely new principle when he deals with a law from such a point of view ? We have always been of opinion that it was the duty of a Magistrate to deal with laws as he found them, that theii* reason or unreason had nothing at all to do with them, and that the utmost that he waa expected to do was to see that they were not ultra vires, A curious' question arrises out of the appeal wbich the Magistrate suggested, and we venture to say that the lawyers concerned will puzzle themselves not a little to solve it. It is this Did the Magistrate give his decision on a point of fact, or on a point of law? If on the former, no appeal can lie, and the decision given must hold good, It is probable, however, that no quibble will be raised, and that the appeal will be heard on its merits. As the power of Parliament to frame laws, and of local bodies to frame by-laws, has been serious impugned, it is to be hoped that the question will be settled so that no doubt is left on the minds of the publio,