CROWN SUITS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 9, 11 July 1910, Page 6

CROWN SUITS.

A flagrant injustice on which two remarkable Wellington cases have focussed the attention of the public is provided with a remedy by the Crown Suits Act Amendment Bill, which was submitted to the House of Representatives on Friday. In one case it was proved that a man might be run over by a wagon belonging to the State Coal Department, and yet debarred from getting a court to say whether he was entitled to comL pensation for his injuries by the limitations ef the Crown Suits 3.ct. In another case a trading company had its business injured by the nuisance arising from the operations of the same department, but found that its right ol action was also barred by the Act, although by favour of the Crown it was admitted to a partial and insufficient remedy. Both of these cases are provided for by the Bill now before the House. It proposes to add to • the grounds of action against the Crown "any wrong or injury that is independent of contract, and for which an action for damages would lie if the defendant was a subject of His Majesty." The immunity of the Crown in respect of the wrong-doing of its servants will be at an end as soon as this clause has passed. In the two cases which have compelled the introduction of this Bill, the plaintiffs would have had no difficulty in having their claims for damages considered if the defendant had been "a subject of His Majesty" ; and we take it that with one important exception in regard to procedure, the State Coal Department will now be under precisely the same- liability for the negligence or other wrongful acts of its employees as though its business were in private hands. We cannot see, however, that the particular wrongs which have created the demand for legislation and mado it effective will be -provided with a remedy by the Bill. There is at 'any rate no such clause as that of the Defence Bill — we had almost said the Knyvett Defence Bill — which expressly gives it a retrospective operation. The other grounds of action recognised by the Crown Suits Amendment Bill and the reservations in regard to malicious prosecution, libel, and the like are also, so far as a layman can judge, satisfactory. So far the Bill recognises the rights of the subject and extends them ; but one extraordinary clause which governs the whole Bill is of a very different character. "No claim or demand against His Majesty under this Act shall be tried before a jury," says the clause to which we refer. It is an a-stonishing clause, indeed, for a Liberal Government to introduce, and it will be interesting, indeed, to see what is made of it by a democratic Parliament. We ar» not such fanatical worshippers of ferial by jury or of any other democratic institution as not to admit that it is liable to abuse. Juries make mistakes, and they aro particularly apt to make mistakes when iihe cl;iim is for damages and the plaintiff is impecunious as well as in jured ajid the defendant is believed to bf> wealthy, [f the plaintiff has suffered injury jind iuu bo money, and the }

defendant can afford to pay, why should he not? That is tie logic by which the jury is too often swayed. Bat there are two points to be borne in mind w&wa.. one is looking round for a remedy. In the first place, the (Jtate is not the only defendant to suffer from this prejudice. Every municipal or commercial corporation, every bank or newspaper proprietor, is exposed to th« same risk; and they all know it to be a very serious risk, and act accordingly when the occa--sion arises. Secondly, if -the State, whick sets up the tribunal expressly excludes its own cases from the jurisdiction of; the tribunal, how can. it reasonablyconipel other defendants to face the s-am.3 risk of an unfair trial? The exemption,! which this Bill claims for Crown caseseither goes too far or does not go nearly far -enough, and we cannot believe that the Hoase of Representatives has sopoor a hold of first principles that it will countenance the proposal as it stands. Other aspects of tne question, than those above indicated, aad especially the constitutional^ aspect, must be, reserved for future treatment.