ASKED TO RESIGN

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 July 1946, Page 4

ASKED TO RESIGN

CHAIRMAN OF LAND SALES COMMITTEE MINISTER’S ACTION CRITICISED (P.A.) HAMILTON, July 18. Alleging that Mr S. Lewis, of Cambridge, the chairman of the Hamilton Land Sales Committee, “is not rightly disposed to nor has a true appreciation of the principles which the Act seeks to apply,” the Minister of Lands (Mr Skinner) has requested Mr Lewis to resign. Mr Skinner, in his original letter to Mr Lewis, dated May 7, stated that on several occasions his attention had been drawn to newspaper reports of meetings and decisions of the Hamilton Land Sales Committee. “I asked for the official reports and after considering them very carefully have reluctantly come to the conclusion that you are not rightly disposed to nor have a true appreciation of the principles which the Act seeks to apply,” wrote the Minister. “Moreover, on several occasions it would appear that your dealings with the Crown officers and witnesses have been biased and unduly harsh. “In view of these facts, -neither I nor the administration, can have the necessary confidence in your chairmanship that is necessary for the effective operation of the Act. As I do not wish to create a situation that may cause you the slightest public embarrassment, I respectfully suggest that you tender your resignation from the office of chairman of the Hamilton Land Sales Committee.” Saying that he was greatly shocked by the implications of the Minister’s letter, Mr Lewis, in reply, said he was previously under the impression that the committee got through the work .quite well and that seemed to him confirmed by the department’s offer to place members on an annual retainer instead of payment by the day.

Chairman’s Letter

“As to the complaints against me, of which and by whom made I am ignorant, I can safely say I am in sympathy with the Act, especially that part' dealing with the settlement of servicemen, and I thought I had been co-operative. As required by the Act, I made the necessary declaration to act judicially and my attitude has been in conformity therewith. To adopt the Crown valuation in all cases would have reduced the committee to the position of a rubber stamp. I deny that I have been biased Crown witnesses and treated them harshly and unjustly. There is always the right*of appeal and, to date, there has been only one successful appeal against the decisions of the committee, and in that case the committee wrongly reduced the price below that of the Crown valuer and no opposition was tendered at the hearing. “To tender my resignation as suggested would be an admission of failure to which I cannot subscribe. In a further letter to the Minister, Mr Lewis wrote: “The fact that officers of the registry and witnesses in the persons of Crown valuers have been consulted and encouraged to criticise me in my judicial position is something novel in my conception of the administration of justice in this country, and I cannot see it happening, say, with the Department of Justice.” Mr Lewis added that, in view ol the allegations made at a protracted interview with the Minister and various officers that it ’was common talk in the legal profession that he (Mr Lewis) had a bias against the Crown, and a bias in favour 01. the vendors, he had asked a number ol prominent solicitors to meet to go fully into the matter and state to him, frankly, their opinions. Law Society’s Action The Hamilton District Law Society inquired into the allegations and took affidavits from the law practitioners in the district, and the society has submitted a memorandum to the Minister in which it states, inter alia: “Having given full consideration to all the material put before it, my council has concluded that both as to the manner in which Mr Lewis was attacked and as to the fact that he was called upon to tender his resignation, two important and vital principles of natural justice have been contravened. “As to the first, the chairman has been condemned without being informed of any specific charges against him and therefore without knowing and being given an opportunity of refuting them, while as to the second, there was unjustified official interference with an officer exercising a judicial function. “These matters call for redress, and my council requests you to remedy the wrong complained of and to do what is just and right in the premises.”