WHEN THE LAW NODS.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 98, 1 June 1914, Page 6

WHEN THE LAW NODS.

JUDGE'S PECULIAR ERROR.

CONSOLIDATION WRONGLY CRITICISED.

From Our Special Correspondent.

WELLINGTON, May 30.

To err is human, and the biggest error pf all is tp be censorious, of . other people.'s errors. This, is especially true the error is really on the part of the censor, and.' not the person censured. Here is a case in point.

According to a Press Association message from Dunedin, published today, Mr Justice Sim, in the course of a considered: judgment in an arbitration case (Bryant and others and Thomson and another) stated that a serious alteration of the Arbitration Act, 1890, had been made by the Consolidating Act of 1908. His Honour is reported as saying:-—'' It .is- rather startling to find that such a change in this law should have been effected in the guise, of consolidation. It is not referred to in the final report of the Consolidation Commissioners, and this fact suggests that the change was made without their knowledge." ■ Besides alleging an alteration' of the law, his Honour goes on to say that there was deliberate action on the part •of some.person. -He is reported thus:-A "The omission must have been made deliberately, and by some person who was so ignorant of. the. 4 subject pf arbitration as not to know the difference between an umpire and a third arbitrator."

It is clear that what his Honour has done is' to:compare • ' the definition of 'submission?'in the Act of 1890 with that in the Consolidating Act of 1908. In the latter a; numbei i of additional words (quoted in - his Honour's judgment) appear. > Without doubt there is a very jmaterial alteration, but it did not make its first appearahce in the statutes in the- Consolidating Act. of 1908. It appeared first in the amending Act of 1906, which his Honour appears to have completely overlooked. The Arbitration.. Act has, of course, nothing to do with what we eall i dustrial disptttes.' . 'lt deals with general arbitration. Arbitration Act.of fIS9O pebplei to submit, under tlrp conditions prescribed in that Act.*'' Submission" was defined to mean "a writ- 1 ten agreement .to submit present or future differences.-; arbitration, whether an arbitrator is named therein or not." „ ;

To the above were added, by the Amending Act of 1906, the following words: "Or under which any question or matter is to be decided by one or more persons to be appointed by the contracting/parties, or by some person named in the: agreement." • • , . Commenting on the appearance of these additional words in the Consoli-. dating. Act of 1908, and not knowing their origin, Mr Justice Sim remarks " These additional words considerably aljer the scope of the Act, and appear to bring under its provisions all writt< a agreements for valuations. ir That was in part the object wit \ which they were enacted in the Act o 1906. Under the definition in the Ae of 1890, cases which it was desired tt submit to arbitration, but which wer( not matters "of '' difference,'' were, according to' legal opinion, outside th« scope of the Act. In this category were placed such questions as "a matter oi valuation which is to be arrived at by arbitrators mutually appointed, or the amount of a rent which it is proposed to decide by arbitrators mutually appointed, or the value of improvements.'' The express object of the Act of 1906 was to include such matters, and thus to extend the operation and benefit of the Act. Ministers knew exactly what they were doing, and so did the consolidating authorities. Mr Justice Sim mistakenly observes: —"How many more similar 'improvements ' have . been made surreptitiously in the Statute Law of - land time alone will disclose." Of course, this is not the only time the law has nodded. A story is told (this on the unimpeachable veracity of a legal luminary!) that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was once proceeding to deliver its judgment in. a Maori land appeal when a New Zealand barrister appearing in the case pointed , out that the- section, on which the judges were inclined to biase their decision; had been repealed! Whether the Judicial Committee found another section to fit the judgment, ob whether the judgment was altered to fit the law, is not recorded. It is a good thing to refleet that overworked pressmen have hot a monopoly of inaccuracy. E.V.H.