JUDGE EDWARDS'S CASE.

Evening Star, Issue 8526, 27 May 1891, Page 2

JUDGE EDWARDS'S CASE.

THE APPOINTMENT UPHELD. WELLINGTON, May 27. In the Appeal Court to-day judgment in the Edwards case was delivered by the Chief Justice. The judgment took an hour in delivery. Chief Justice Prendergast considered that there waa no authority in la*- for the appointment, and it ought therefore to be cancelled. Although he waa in favor of the Crown, the majority of the judges were in favor of the defendant. Justices Richmond, Williams, and Denniston delivered judgment's whioh were in favor of Judge Edwarda. Judge Conolly's judgment was in favor of the Crown.

Chief justice Prendergast said that, although Mr Edwards was appointed Native Land Commissioner with the powers of a Supreme Court judge, the intention of the Legislature evidently lay towards the former, it being understood that he should do temporary service On the Supreme Court bench during the absence of Mr Justice Richmond. He held that there was no authority in law for making the appointment, and that it should therefore be cancelled. Mr Justice Riohmond said that if the case turned upon the issue whether the salary promised by the late Administration could be considered to have been "ascertained and established," he should hold that judgment must go for the Crown; but passing on to the ulterior question of the validity of the patent, he (His Honor) took it to be dear that by the original constitution of the three common law courts at Westminster the number of puisne judges was unlimited, their appointment resting with the Crown. It would be impossible, therefore, to argue that the Act of Settlement took away this power of the Crown. He held that the informant's objection to the validity of the patent was not well founded, and judgment must be for the defendant.

Mr Justice Williams held that the provisions of the Act of Settlement as to fixing and ascertaining the salaries of the judges were not in force as law in the colony. Even if they were, the Act did not prescribe that the salary of a judge must be absolutely fixed and ascertained by statute at the instant of his accepting office, Mr Justice Conolly agreed with the Chief Justice. He could arrive at no conclusion other than that a judge of the Supreme Court, woen appointed during good behaviour, should have a fixed Balary, even if he confined his attention to the Supreme Court Act, 1882. There was really nothing in the contention that there was a contract for the payment of the salary of Judge Edwards either made verbally with the Premier or by his letters. No such contract could be made to bind Parliament, and apart from Parliament there could be no funds to pay the salary. Mr Justice Denniston said that the Governor had by Commission, issued in the name and on behalf of Her Majesty, appointed the defendant, who possessed the necessary qualifications, to be a judge of the Supreme Court, and he did not think that this Court could challenge such Commission, In this Court at least one long and distinguished judicial career began and ended with admittedly no better title than that conferred on Mr Edwards. Judgment must be for defendant.

The judgment of the Court was entered up for the defendant, with costs. The question of appeal to the Privy Council was mentioned by Mr Gully, but was left over for the present, he undertaking to consult the legal advisers of the Crown on the subject. The Court adjourned until June 17, when the remaining judgments will be delivered,