APPEAL COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 27 September 1929, Page 6

APPEAL COURT

(By Telegraph—Per Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, Sept. 26

In the llayner Appeal Court case, Air Firir, in opening for the Crown, . said that compliance with the order for discovery that was made against the Crown, under the provisions of our code of civil procedure would necessitate the making of an affidavit by His Majesty in person. This would be a novelty in our history. Prima facie, it was evident that discoveries did not lie against the Crown and, accordingly, it was necessary for the suppliant to point out something in the Crown Suits Act or the Code of Civil Procedure which took away the prerogative of the Crown and gave to its subjects the right to discoveries. He had found it. impossible, he concluded, to find a case on record where, at common law, discoveries had been granted against the Crown suing as such. Mr Gray, K. 0., said that the English cases and arguments mentioned by the Solicitor-General did not apply in New Zealand, owing to the fact that the provisions of the New Zealand Crown Suits Act were different to the Petitions of Right Act (England). Continuing, Mr Gray submitted that, having regard to the language of' the Crown Suits Act, and in view of recent Australian decisions, on Statutes very similar to our own, the right of the Crown to resist discovery had been taken away. * The subject suing the Crown was in the same position, and was entitled to the same rights, as a subject suing a subject, save where the Statute expressly provided otherwise. The Court reserved its decisions.