THE ACTION AGAINST SIR ARTHUR GORDON.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6763, 21 July 1883, Page 4

THE ACTION AGAINST SIR ARTHUR GORDON.

VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF. DAMAGES £100. [Br TELEGRAXTI. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] Wellington, Friday. In t the Supreme Court the case of Hunt v Gordon was resumed to-day.

His Honor said he had considered the arguments and points of law on the part of the defendant. He had been aaked to withdraw the case altogether from the jury, and although he was unable to assent to that course, he felt bound to give him the benefit of the opinion which he had formed in his favour on many poiuts. As to the question of naturalisation, in his opinion the t;rm "foreign state," in section B of the Naturalisation Act, IS7O, must be understood to mean civilised state. It would be out of place, and a matter of some difficulty to give an exact definition for the purpose, but it was enough to say, in his opinion, the natnre of the case implies that the British citizen who has to take advantage of the statutory provision and to renounce his natural allegiance ahall come under some social and national, restraint equivalent to that from which he is freeing himself. There must be a transfer of allegiance, and therefore some sufciently organised body politic capable of accepting the transfer, a body able to control its individual members in their intercourse with citizens of otuerstates, otherwise the Act would certainly be made use of as a means of escaping restraint, not only of British law, but of civilized society. It was plain on the terms of the order-iu-Council of 1577, that Samoa was not to be regarded as a civilised state or power, He hid been asked to decide on the evidence, or to leave it to the jury to decide whether Samoa was not dc facto civilised. " He need not stop to inquire whether the evidence could possibly justify such a conclusion. It was enough to say that the Crown did not recognise Samoa a3 a civilised Btate, but on the contrary treated the Navigator Group as not within the jurisdiction of any civilised power. The argument for the plaintiff grounded on the su-called treaties was, he held, effectually disposed of by Mr. Harper and Mr. Bell. If it could be held that the British treaty operated as a recognition of Samoa as a civilised power, the islanders would be removed from the protection of the Acts of 1872 and 1875, and the jurisdiction of the High Commissioner in the Navigators Group would be put an end to.' The treaty was far from Laving any such purpose, for it actually provided for the issue of regulations by the High Commissioner, and for the obedi--1 eaceoftheSamoaas themselves to hissummons. The question whether the plaintiff was dangerous to the peace and good order of Samna had been adjudicated upon by the defendant. No doubt it was a matter of opinion whether he was actually dangerous. The defendant was the person duly authorised to determine the question, and did determine it adversely to the plaintiff. That conclusion, whether well or ill founded, could not be taken into question by them now. It was therefore not competent for the plaintiff to question the sufficiency of the evidence on which the High Commissioner prosecuted, or to deny that he himself was a dangerous person. As to the objection that the order was made and issued on Sunday, the answer was that i* was not of the nature of n civil process, but concerned the public peace and security. The fact that the plaintiff was dangerous to the peace and good order of Samoa must be ! considered to bs established for the purpose of the action.

His Honor, in summing-up, said the jury must clearly understand the nature of the causes from which the action had arisen. It was provided by an order-in-Council that the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific should have power to deport any person to any portion of the "Western Pacific, provided it was to a place within the Western Pacific ; but it so happened that a pjttion of the clause under which the defendant acted in deporting the plaintiff did not include Fiji, as it was a British colony. Fiji was, geographically speaking, within the Western Pacific, butit was not so for the purposes of the Act. The question in the first issue, whether the defendant had made such an ordeir, was admitted 1 by the defendant. The second issue was, did the defendant make such order " wrongfully, maliciously, and without proper cause." His Honor then went through the evidence at great length. The jury retired at 45 minute 3 past two p.m., and after the expiration of three hours came into Court, by direction of His Honor, when the foreman stated they had been, unable .to agree. On again retiring, they brought in a verdict for the plaintiff for £100 damages on the 14th issue, adding a rider that the jury regretted that so many issues had been withdrawn from them, under which they would have awarded more substantial damages to the plaintiff for the injuries he had sustained through the powers exercised by the defendant.

The Court then adjourned till ten a.m. on Monday.