THE EDWARDS CASE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 2944, 28 May 1891, Page 2

THE EDWARDS CASE.

AP I'O I XI.AI KXT UP JI K L 1). (UY TKLKGUAI'H — I'KKSS ASSOCIATION.) Wkli.isi; i'on, Night. Tub full Bench in the Court <.f Appeal met this morning to deliver judgment in tliij case of the Attorney ( leneral v. Ivlwards, in which Mr \V. I!. E Iwards was called npnn to show cm.« why the Commis---i'ln ho holds as Judge of 11m Supreme Court should not be cancelled c n theground of illegality. Tho judgment went in favour of the defendant, two of their Honors (thu Chief Justice and Mr Conolly) dissenting. Tho judgment took an hour in delivery. It, considered there was no authority in law for the appointment, which ought therefore to be cancelled. After delivering his own judgment, the Chief Justice said although ho was in favour of the Crown, the majority of the Judges were in favour of the defendant. Justices Richmond, Williams and Denniston delivered their judgments, which favour Mr Edwards, while Justice Connolly's judgment was in favour of the Crown. The judgment of the court was ontered up for the defendant, with costs. Tho question of appeal to the Privy Council was mentioned by Mr Cully, but was left over for the present, he undertaking to consult tho legal advisers of the Crown on tho subject.

Chief Justice Prendergast said that aUhough Mr Edwards was appointed Native Land Commissioner with powers of a Supreme Court Judge, the intention of the Legislature evidently lay towards the former, it being understood that he should do temporary service on the Supremo Court Bench during tho absence of Justice Richmond. He hold there was no authority in law for making the appointment, which should therefore be cancelled. Justice Richmond said that if the case turned upon the issue whether the salary promised by the late administration could he considered to have been ascertained and established, he should hold that the judgment must go for tho Crown; but passing on to the ulterior question of tho validity of the patent, His Honor took it to be clear that by tho original constitution of the Common Law Courts at Westminster the number of puisne Judges was unlimited, their appointment resting with the Crown, and it would be impossible therefore to argue that the Act of Settlement took away this power of the Crown. He held that the informant's objection to the validity of the patent was not well founded, Judgment must bo for defendant. Justice Williams held that tho provisions of the Act of Settlement as to fixing the salaries of judges were not in force as law in tho colony. Even if they were the Act did not prescribe that a salary of a judge must be absolutely fixed and ascertained by statute at tho instant of his accepting the office. Justice Connolly agreed with the Chief Justice. Ho could arrive at no other conclusion than that a judge of tho Supreme Court when appointed, during his good behaviour should have a fixed salary. Even if he confined his attention to the Supreme Court Act, 1882, there was really nothing in tho contention that there was 110 contract for tho payment of salary of judge either made verbally with the Premier or by letter No such contract could be made to bind Parliament, and apart from Parliament there could he 110 funds to pay the salary. Justice Denniston said that the Governor had by a commission issued in the name and on behalf of (ler Majesty appointed defendant who possessed the necessary qualifications to be a Judge of the Supreme Court, and he did not think they could challenge such a commission in this Court at least. Later, In tho Edwards' case to-day, Mr Uully obtained leave to appeal to the Privy Council. It is understood the Government intend to send Home the papers necessary for placing the case before the Privy Council by next mail.