NODINE CASE AGAIN.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 947, 14 October 1910, Page 4

NODINE CASE AGAIN.

/REFERRED TO' II? .PARLIAMENT...!. .•': The. -Attqrney-Gener'4j''..ia.moving! the second fea'ding of/the Judicature Ameridr merit:Bill in the Legislatjye Council 'yes-. terday,' .the fir?t.. clause,! dealing wi th! the 'powers-of where there is /more. than', one in leach'-'district; was framed : . to ■ relieve ■a- deadlock, which had., occurred in: different' parts;!- of /.the Dominion. Doubt had'arisen in!:'certain districts where there .Were two' registrars as to .which! should exercise : certain 'func- | tions./ This clause would enable, the-most 1 convenient registrar/to, perform" the work:! The other, portion/of, the,"Bill/dealt /with. the execiition pf'instruments'by order .of ' the -Supreme .Court.'! This .would ! meet ■ sucli' a .case as '..the' one' which '-.had • occur! pied- so much space'in, the papers of -late —the Nodme-.'case.!'... In regard/tdiiquite. a number of-documents the 'law.gaye -power to the judge to' appoint someone:to exe-! .cute'such documOT-ts.f-.No,'such.power existed' in! New Zejaland in regard to leases,' although' it. pUd in England.'-.tHe. thought the/old.-.clumey ,'prpcedrife should/be-re-moved. „If. it was. .the". duty..of ■a ; man .to sign a lease .it should be able, to be done, without sending the man! to gaol.-.'" :'- The Hon.' J. E.'■ Jehkineon'/ pointed- out. that. the' Chief 'Justice.'had /said -that' would, sign, the,lease" on behalf, of. the man in! the case in Wellington;re!cently. >.■"' ■.•!■■/ '/;-:/•'■■' ! ,■;/..[ :/ ■/;•!/;/ \

~ The 'Attorney-General : ; remarked- that, this .power was- not given ; in: New Zealand to-day. ..This'.Bill;.:was -riot;retro-, active,'and would not,.he thought; touch tbe case in' WeUington:.recenUy.,;':.The'" purpose was to obviate a".; repetition of the; waste", of. time and money'; that' had 'been seen of late.; /•/'. '■;■;.';y ':~''r. \ -.■■•

The Hon.' 0. Samuel (Taranaki); thought, that if; the-.,olause'. , \vas;nbt';'to-:.be-.'retro-' active; there-should: t».:a;saTing,claus9. to the. effect'that it washot, to. affect any m atters in which proceedings were pending. Y'\:;.. -.: '-.■■' : /"- ■'.':. V:. T.:"-,./ >■• . The Hons. : T.' Kelly-and, G.: J.-; Smith* thought that ;if the proposal was to deal with a special case,jt was:not.right.'.;■'•, /The Hon. W. Beehan.(Auckland).hojjsd, that the Bill would not interfere in.- any ■way with" what was known as,the : Nodine case... If, it were' passed it should- only.' refer to future' cases. Whichever way : it: goes, added-Mr; Beehan, .• it 'would'be disastrous :to Nodine. It would, be'madness for hiin'(Nodine) to pay '.£l6 a week rent in the . present,-.state ■ of, his.:particular trade in Wellington. : - He : . thought Messrs. Nodine, and: Hannah'should :beallowed to, fight, the matter, ont to,, the bitter-end.;' ■/■'.'. '•>'''' ? y'.'';-,'.;•'//

' The: Attorney : General thought; it was inexpedient to discuss the: merits ; or demerits, of. the. Nodine case,' nor did /he feel.inclined. .to express .an .opinion on the legal- position. ..He could say, how-' ever, .that he did not/ beleive at -all in retroactive legislation..' Even if the Bill were passed, aiid made applicable" to Mr. Nodinc's case, Nodine,could still.'go oq. with, any appeal. " >'■:■'. .■' ■'■'■■: ;.'''!-••■■, ,Tlie Bill' was; referred to the: .Statutes' Revision. Committee. ..... "•"•'■•..■'■"' ■•'.