LEGAL AFFAIRS

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 103, 28 October 1932, Page 8

LEGAL AFFAIRS

MEMBER'S COMPLAINT

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

TRIAL OP MOTOR CASES

Several legal matters of importance were referred to by Mr. W. P. Endean (Government, Parnell) in the course of the Budget Debate in the House of Representatives last evening. Mr. Endean complained of the paucity of discussion in the House on matters of a legal character, making particular reference to the revision of the Companies Act and the suggestion of the Chief Justice that "running down" cases should be heard by a Judge and two assessors instead of a jury. Ho also dealt with tho position of the Attorney-General. Mr. Endean contrasted the position of tho Attorney-General in England with that of the New Zealand AttorneyGeneral, and said that in England the members of the legal profession were very patriotic and it was deemed their duty that a certain percentage of their time should be given to the affairs of the country. Nowhere in the world wera there laws more just, or on a higher plane of equity, than were the laws in Britain. That was due to the presence in the House of practitioners at the Bar. New Zealand was not so fortunate, as the active practitioners were not able to devote the time to the country's affairs. "FALLING INTO DISUSE." In Britain, the Attorney-General had Ministerial rank but not Cabinet rank, and he had great powers. He was an adviser to Cabinet on matters of law. "I am sorry to say that in New Zealand the functions of the AttorneyGeneral are falling into disuse," he said. Sir Thomas Sidey had done justice to tho profession, but the gentlemen in the Lower House who had occupied the position had certainly not come up to the mark. Mr. Endean said he had never heard a legal matter discussed yet.. He referred to the suggestion of the Chief Justice in Christehurch, that "running down" cases should be tried by a Judge and two assessors, and said that in view of the increasing use of motor vehicles and the amount of litigation, he thought that such an important matter would have been, discussed in the House. It did not follow that because the country was "hard up," justice and law should be neglected. Mr. Endean said that he had inquired from persons who had considerable skill and experience, and he had come to the conclusion that the suggestion of the Chief Justice was entirely wrong and not in the best interests of the people of New Zealand. (Hear, hear). He would admit that in some cases juries allowed sentiment to sway them, but in the majority of cases the common sense of twelve men did justice. If there were a Judge and two assessors, they would become one man and two advocates. COMPANIES ACT. Mr. Endean went on to refer to the position of the Attorney-General in relation to a revision of the Companies Act, which, he said was not a credit to the Statute Book. It dated back to. 1882. Law was designed to prevent fraud, but the Companies Act as designed at present could be made a vehicle of fraud. Mr. Endean said he could pick out six members—including the member for Napier (Mr. W. E. Barnard) and the member for Auckland Suburbs (Mr. H. G. R. Mason) —who would be only too pleased to "get down" on the Act. , Mr. Endean said he did not think that the present Attorney-General (Sir Apiraria Ngata) was fit to hold the position. (Laughter from the Labour benches). He went on to criticise section. 82 of the Native Purposes Act, but Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Labour, Auckland Suburbs) raised a point of order, stating that the matter involved in Mr. Endean's complaint referred to a petition presented by him. Mr. F. Langstone (Labour, Waimarino): You'ra all wrong. Mr. Speaker: I will name the Hon. member for Waimarino for disorderly conduct. Mr. Mason's point of order was upheld.