A HINDU JURIST.

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 244, 9 July 1921, Page 8

A HINDU JURIST.

WISHES TO PRACTISE IN NEW ZEALAND APPLICATION OPPOSED COURT RESERVES DECISION Before the Full Court yesterday, the adjourned application for admission ns a barrister and solicitor of Manila! Maganlal Hooter, a Hindu lawyer, came up for consideration. Tho case had been removed from the Supreme Court by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) on November 26 last, when Mr. C. J. Tunks moved for the admission, in the Supremo Court in Auckland. Yesterday the bench consisted of Their Honours Mr. Justice Sim, Mr. Justice Hosking, Mr. Justice Stringer, Mr. Justice Reed, and Mr. Justice Adams. Mr. P. J. O’Regan appeared for the applicant and Mr. H. P- Richmond for the Auckland Law Society, which opposed the application. Manilal has an interesting history. He was born in the State of Baroda, India, in 1881, his father being a doctor in the Bombay Medical Service. His primary and secondary education was gained in Baroda and Bombay. At the University of Baroda ho took the degree of B.A. in 1902, and that of LL.B, in 1904. Prom there he went to the University of Bombay, where he became a Master of Arts in the following year. Ho was then admitted as a barrister of the Middle Temple, in London. Subsequenti ly he became a Vakil of tho High Court of Judicature at Bombay, a barrister-at-law of the Supreme Court of Mauritius, and an advocate of the High Court of Judicature at Port William (Calcutta, Bengal). After his arrival in Fiji, ho was admitted as ft barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Fiji, where ho practised for some time during the war period. Ho was deported as th? result of alleged stirring up of the Hindu element in Fiji, which precipitated a strike of the sugar workers, and after leaving Fiji settled at Kiliikihi, near Te Awamutu, in the Southern Waikato, where he lives with several Hindu farmers. "Fijian Authorities Aided-” ' In support of his case the applicant produced, through his lawyer, many affidavits in his favour from various white people, including the principals of the Baroda College, missionaries, and Government officials in Fiji, lawyers, politicians and traders. He was in Fiji from November 4, 1912, until March 30, 1920, and was still on the rolls of legal practitioners in Fiji. In August of 1920 Mr. Manilal passed the necessary examination in statute law of New Zealand, insofar as was necessary for a barrister of the Middle Temple, gaining 56 per cent, of the maximum marks. Since ■then, he had been living in retirement, ns previously stated. In a lengthy deposition the 'applicant referred to work of public value he had done in Fiji. Under the instructions of the Commissioner, he affirmed, ho had at various times done special work for the authorities. Being a strict Hindu, he was "a total abstainer from animal foods, liquor and tobacco.” Ho totally denied that ho was the cause of the Indian strike or that he was at any time the principal agitator in the riots. "At the time of the strike,” ho added, "I was at the island of Ba, 140 miles from Suva, and was brought to Suva by the authorities in a 1 special launch, where, acting under their instructions, I gave my services in the matter of negotiations. . . . “I was the first to lead Indian deputa- ’ l ions to the two Governors of Fiji, presenting them with addressee after their arrival, and on various other occasions, including an occasion when my countrymen petitioned for educational facilities for- their children, and led one, asking, with .Mr. Nunn, of the Wesleyan Mission, for the total abolition of the sale of liquor in Fiji. During the early years ' »of the war I, and my countrymen through me, contributed to funds such as , the Red Cross fund, for which thanks were conveyed to me and others by a ■ letter from the wife of the Acting Governor.” Further, Mr. Manilal said he had been appointed to the head of many local organisations in Fiji, and in April, 1920, in Auckland, had headed the list of the Indians' welcome to the Prince of Wales. .During his stay in Fiji he was officially consulted by tho Attorney-General in reTerence to an amendment to tho old Indian marriage ordinance, and in 1916, 1917, find 1919 by the Agent-General of Immigration ho was frequently asked his opinion concerning the ordinance. In 1917 he was asked to help to conciliate strained feelings between Hindus and Mohammedans. “A Hindu Gentleman.” On behalf of his client, Mr. O’Regan - said that Manilal was a. Hindu gentleman of the highest caste and qualifications. Ho was from British India, and a member of nn ancient faith. Mr. Justice Reed: Is Manilal actually a British subject? Ho was born in the State of Baroda, ami its status as far as the Empire is concerned is not very definite. ' .„ Mr. O’Regan: Your Honour, oven it. there is such a doubt, tho facts that tho applicant had practised in Mauritius and Fiji, where he is still on the rolls, should show that tho point is not vital. "Usually,” said Judge Hosking, "when one speaks of an Indian one thinks of a British subject. However, it does not follow that officially the person is a British subject. That being so, is there any provision in tho Act requiring tho applicant to ba * British subject before he can be admitted?” Mr. Richmond: I do not think so. In referring to tho career of Manilal, and his subsequent admission to the Middle Temple, Mt. O’Regan cited the case of an American subject, Colonel Gorgas, who bad done wonderful work in freeing the Panama. Canal zone from yellow fever. "Although thus honoured,” said Mr. O’Regan, "tho recipient remained an American citizen.” Counsel further contended that. Manilal had not been deported from Fiji in the strict sense. Under the provisions of an edict dating 'back to 1875, he had been ordered not to reside in certain portions of tho Fijian group for a period of two years. He had never been struck off the roll of legal practitioners in Fiji, and at the end of two years could return and resume his practice. Although criticised by the Governor of the group concerning his influence with the Indian population there, Manilal had not been a prime agitator. In the same dispatch to the Secretary of State for tho Colonies, the Governor had "mildly rebuked tho C.S.R. Company, in stating that had certain concessions been'allowed earJier trouble would have, been averted altogether. Mr. O’Regan submitted that striker wore not maintained by ringleaders. In the case of the Fiji strikes ho blamed economic conditions. Tn answer to Mr. Justice. TLoakiriu, counsel contended that tho Fijian strikes were not due to disloyalty on the pmt of the Indian population 1 invite th o Court to believe,” he said, that the 1 - dian population of Fiji is not disloyalJudge Hosking: Perhaps they consider the C.S.K. Company moro of a Sovereign than the King. Counsel: They pro in closer touch with it than they are with the King, I think! Counsel stressed the contention that an order of deportation such as was mode in the present case was not necessarily a reflection on the personal character of the man. There had been no opportunity given Manilal of clearing his name in a court of law, ami yet there were, in all the affidavits previously mentioned, f»o specific charges against him. . "The only charge that is at all specifi'!,” said

counsel, "is that Manila! occupied a portion of land contrary to regulations. . Wo admit that the Chief Justice of Fiji has not given an affirmative certificate as to his good character, but we submit that under tho circumstances the Chief Justice was in a delicate position. . . . If Manilal is admitted here tho effect is sure to be far-reaching, for tho news of it will reach India, where ho is not unknown, and will certainly do something towards fostering understanding and happy relationships between India and tho Empire." "Unfit for Admission.” For the Auckland Law Society, Mr. Richmond stated definitely that there was no racial prejudice at the bottom of the opposition by the society. It was its duty to ascertain whether or not Manila! was a person of fit character or qualifications to be admitted as a barrister of tho New Zealand Supreme Court. Sir Robert Stout had asked for more evidence, and accordingly affidavits had been obtained from Fiji residents “That evidence." said Mr. Richmond, "gives the society grave doubts as to Manilal’s. fitness for admission: . . . Ho has not been loyal, and tho opinion has been freely expressed in Fiji that ho is not fit to be a barrister.” Counsel further stated that of all the affidavits submitted by the applicant in his favour not one had been the testimonial of a client, with the possible exception of one document. ’The vexed question of indentured Labour made the matter of information difficult at the present time, although there were avenues of confidential information open to the Court of which the Law Society could take no advantage. The Fijian Government did not wish to irritate the resident Indians at the present time. Of the affidavits, only a few referred to 1919 and 1920, the significant years, as far as Manilal was concerned. Other affidavits carried no weight. Counsel did not consider the statements made by Messrs. M'Comb and Bartram to bo of great worth. The inquiries made by Mr. Scott, leader of the Bar in Fiji, had led the society to believe Manilal was responsible for most of tho disaffection amongst Hindus in Fiji in 1919. "Tho society does not wish the honour of tho profession to be impugned, and wishes to protect the public against any man who it thinks would not be a fit person to practise a a barrister and solicitor.” On learning from Mr. O’Regan that Manilal intended to practise among his own people resident in tho Dominion, Judge Hosking said: "It has been suggested by one affidavit that he practised on them, and not among them!” "Yes." said Mr. O’Regan, "but an irate person might Jay that charge against any one of us!” After hearing counsels' replies, tfia Court reserved decision.