SHE EDWARDS CASE.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7866, 18 May 1891, Page 3

SHE EDWARDS CASE.

, WELLINGTON, May 6. m the Supreme Court to-day, in the ° f the Attorney-General, Mr Gully, S^^i 6 **statement of claim in the case w- \* right to sit as a Supreme •f"-* Judge. Divested of technical verthe document sets forth that there Few, on 2nd March, 1890, and still are, five g"7 appointed judges of the Supreme 5*? I**1** one Chief Justice, and four puisne Judges. These judges have been paid ■jwnes fixed by the CivU List Act. 1863, m Amending Act, 1873. On 2nd March, «Wj his Excellency the Governor, purport's to exercise the powers vested in him by J» bupreme Court Act, 1882, issued a com■wwjitoWorley Bassett Edwards, Esq., •■"tfnsterof the Supreme Court of more jaaa seven years' standing, purporting to JSK klv lum to he a rmisne judge during swi Dehaviour, that the appointment was y "way of substitution for or succession Sd A - previousl y appointed judges, nor ■fmiJfr commi ssion purport to be an apgtoentbut of a temporary judge in jT%, ot the dbiess or absence of uny jud S es: that no salary *w w Awards as Judge was, prior to _Al,*A P i K,m^ ne - t ' ascertained and es_d««T ' and no salary has yet been ascertr, w or established, while Parliament •EST- «_£°& a &^Vy for defendant as , xnat The appointment of defendant Jf wmmissioner under the Native Land ISB9. came to an ®Jon 31st March last, __d defendant is no 52K* * ; that the defendant _ndw e l 5 pro P erl y appointed a Judge, office by hearing md _Sf d __s? Clvil -nd criminal cases and *W has^n 111 ! ll f C ° urt of 1 ' ♦ffrbnf * ° legal arrant, authority, IW ,1 exercising otScial functions. Dra™ tl S** olmd s the Attorney-General the f,I cousule i-ation of the Court upon we facts set out; that due process on law tod ,„ \* ed a S a h>st the said Edwards ikimTT 6 -, mishowlj y what authority he ST. tu !,' U * e > aud en J°y the office of SttnTmL- , Court m y declare that the SdS n ° U{ ? ht t0 be cancelled, vacated, gd dualloweS; that such relief may be a_ the Court may on the prentise.

•SP__f th the "tatement of claim, Mr £r_r» a T\ Cc of m °tio- in terms of Er K F stat f d r a bove, also another motion itJri_sR Va - ° f the n , caße into the Court of fflEd eCISIOa - Tlie «"* is to be argued probabl y earf y next week. WUI S * l t moQd ' * h " « on a holiday, be one of the jud 6 es to hear

WULLISIIJTO-J, May Al The defence to the motion against ilr Justice Edwards was filed this afternoon. The defendant denies that the Civil List Act, 1563, Amendment Act, 1875, in any respect dealt with or affected the appointment of J tidges as alleged. He sets up the Governor's commission, and alleges it is in the same form us all the other Judges' commissions. He points out the ° oritnnal purpose of the appointment was ia connection with the Native Lands Commission. Soon after the close of tbe session of 1539, the Under Secretary for Native Aiiairs waited upon Mr Edwards to ascertain whether lie would accept the Coinmissionersmp, naming £700 and travelling allowances as the remuneration, with liberty to continue to practise as a solicitor. He informed the Under Secretary that his booiis snowed that he was making an income of .82200 per annum, and it was not probable he could accept the Commissionership unless he received same salary as a Supreme Court Judge and was allowed to practice his profession so far as possible. He would consider tiie offer. He beard nothmg till October 14th, 1889, when the Native Minister sent for him and formally offered him the Comrnisaionersliip at £1200 a year and ill ls per day allowance, with liberty of private practice, it being estimated tbat the work of the commission would last from five to ten years. Ths defendant replied that since he had seen the Under-Secretary a change had taken place in his business, and it was hardly likely he could accept the appointment. If he did so he did not think lie could accept less than he had already stated. After consideration lie decided to accept the appointment provided he bad the emoluments of a. Judge of the Supreme Court, and a guarantee of threei years' engagement. The Minister was understood to leave Wellington without replying. In the meantime the defendant considered the matter, and concluded that his acceptance of otlice 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 November 16th, 1389, he definitely declined the office, even though the Government should offer what be had asked for. After some lapse of time, on February 20th, 1890, Sir Harry Atkinson sent for the defendant, offered him a Supreme Court judgeship, with the Commissionership, at the same salary and allowance as the other puisne judges. The offer was accepted, and on March 6th the defendant received his commission. The defendant submits that the negotiation and correspondence constituted a contract binding on the Crown, whereby bis salary as a Judge was ascertained and established. He, therefore, denies that no salary was ascertained and established for him as

alleged, and denies tliat Parliament had refused to vote a salary for him as Judge. In the session of 1890 a minority of the House so far obstructed business that in order to save great publio loss and inconvenience arising from dissolution by eilluxion of time, Ministers had to submit to the withdrawal of the word "Judge in the estimates, and thereupon his salary as Commissioner passed. At the same time the Minister in charge declared that the Ministry could not and would not interfere with the defendant's discbarge of the. duties of Judge, and would pay to the defendant his full salary of .£ISOO a-year. Defendant was paid the full salary as Judge, not as Commissioner, up to 31stMarch last. He says the present Government caused him to be removed from office, notwithstandhig that there were many matters, several of which had been heard but not finally adjudicated upon, then depending before the Commissioner. Finally, the defendant claims his commission is in full force and has been in no respect impeached, nullified, cancelled, or suspended. He submits that he is now lawfully a puisne Judge. To-morrow Mr Gully will move in Chambers, before the Chief Justice, in accordance with the notice of which he has already given, for the removal of the case into the Appeal Court. Later. Step 3 are to be taken to remove the Edwards case at once to the Court of Appeal, without application or'argument before the Chief Justice.