APPEAR AGAINST CHANGE OF VENUE

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2217, 1 August 1914, Page 2

APPEAR AGAINST CHANGE OF VENUE

'TIMES" V. LIBEL Stout) in granting a change of veuw connection with an article which £ Mr. M. Myers, with Mr. T C A His op, appeared for the appelHntt while S|r John Findlay, K.c'Tth Mr'

On the previous day counsel for the appellants addressed the Court and When the Judges took theirS on the hench yester&y the President (Mr Justice Dennisfon) announced that-it en" *° Lear th ?

i 6 T es , s J n , g t£ e opinion that the appeal, should be dismissed, Mr. Justice IX'oiT Sa 'i think t a? Rule 249, under which the application, ■tor change of venue was madb, limited ;the matter so as to remove it from the discretion of the Judge. The argument, whioh had been advanced, that there must .be evidence that the case could not he conveniently and fairly -tried at the original place did not seem to his Honour, to interfere with the .ordinary rule of discretion of Judges in tact, tne word -"conveniently" seemed, to leave a very large amount to the discretion of the Judge. In an action of tins sort, the Judge was entitled ■to look at the record, and, further- if •the Judge hearing tho application'was ?-x, r go who Wed the case, he was entitled to use all the knowledge acquired' at the trial, and was also entitled to use matters df knowledge as a right. That being so, v -then there wero quite sufficient facts beforo the Judge to entitle him to come to the conclusion he arrived! at. In his Honours opinion, the order made by the Chief Justice- was a proper ono', and' quite ]ustified by the ovidenco boforo ;him, and tho appeal should therefore bo dismissed. Mr. Justice Edward's agreed. He had ;no doubt iihat tho power givon by tho rule was discretionary. Even assuming that every ; Judge was .entitled to. shut his eyes to tho temper of the community, m whioh ho lived, his Honour thought that there was sufficient in the affidavits to justify the order for chance of venue. The appellants had not suggested the slightest inconvenience in having.tho case tried elsewhere,' but stood by their claim for a legal right to the original venue. In his opinion they had no such legal right. ; Mr: Justice Cooper also agreed that the appeal ehejkl be dismissed. He was quite sure that tho words of the rule imported a discretionary power, and ho was supported in that view by an authority ho quoted. Ho thought tho Chief Justice , had exercised that discretionary power on right grounds, and had not departed from principle when he expressed the opinion ■ that there could not bo a fair trial in Wellington. ■ ' .

Mr. Justice Stringer was also of opinion that the appeal "should be dismissed. He thought that the ciroumstances of the case wore such as not only to justify, but in the interests of jiistico to demand a change of venue. ! Tho respondents were allowed costs «s the highest scales ,