THE CASE OF MR. JUSTICE EDWARDS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8534, 7 April 1891, Page 5

THE CASE OF MR. JUSTICE EDWARDS.

[BY TELEGRAPH.—OWN CORRESPONDENT.] Wellington, Monday. Notice was given in the Supreme Court to-day of an application for a rule for a writ of habeas corpus to bring the body of John Aldridge, convicted before Mr. Justice Edwards of forgery and sentenced to five years' penal servitude. Very great interest is attached to this new phase of the controversy connected with the appointment of Judge Edwards. The judicial and political embroglio of which this learned gentleman has been for more than a year the central figure is likely, therefore, to develop into a sensational, if not quite a romantic denouement. Some time ago I told you that a habeas corpus would be applied for at the next Court of Appeal sittings to bring the body of a prisoner sentenced by Mr. Justice Edwards before the Court on the grounds — (1) that the prisoner had been tried and sentenced by a person who had no jurisdiction ; (2) that if Mr. Edwards was even a Judge, he had, in pronouncing sentence, acted ultra vires ; (3) that the Court before whom the said prisoner was tried was not legally constituted as a Court oyer and terminer; (4) that the proceedings at his trial were null and of no effect. The following is the position : —Mr. Harry Vogel (a son of Sir Julius Vogel), recently called to the bar, and having achieved much success in one or two cases, then gave notice of the application. The hearing of the application for a rule to issue the writ of habeas corpus will raise the whole question of the appointment of a Judge to a seat on tho Bunch of the Supreme Court. Of course in such a case as this Mr. Justice Edwards would not take his seat on the Bench, nor, whether he is really or not a Judge of the Supreme Court, is ho likely to do so. The interest in the case is in the belief that the whole of the questions so warmly debated in connection with Mr. Justice Edwards'appointment will arise. The Chief Justice will preside, possibly -Mr. Justice Richmond, although his period of leave is not yet expired, certainly Mr. Justice Denniston, and Mr. Justice Conolly, but not Mr. Justice Williams. Why not Mr. Justice Williams? The reason is said to be that Mr. Justice Williams' own appointment to the Judicial Bench will form one of the topics that will be argued during the hearing of the motion for tho rule. .The above is all straightforward as to the facts and grounds for this legal proceeding. As to the issue of tho proceedings, I am told the legal profession is much exercised. I learn that one of the ablest members of the bar has given the following view of what is likely to happen. It appears that when Mr. Justice Williams was appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court his appointment was made in view of a Judge retiring from tho Bench, and bofore that Judge had retired. He was, in effect, a sixth Judge of the Court. When the learned Judge whom he was to replace had retired, there was no thought that Mr. Williams' appointment was invalid, or ultra vires, or unconstitutional, or illegal. He has occupied the Bench in the Supremo Court ever since, without any question as to the validity of his appointment; it therefore comes about that if Mr. Williams' appointment was invalid, and no Validation Act was passed to make it right, he was no Judge of the Supreme Court, and all his judicial acts have been invalid. If Mr. Edwards is represented by counsel (as he _is sure to be) this will bo the contention relied upon, for if Mi*. Williams' appointment was invalid there were only four judges on the bench, therefore if Mr. Edwards' appointment has been rightly made he comes within the provision made for the salaries of judges, and is entitled to be paid, being the fifth judge, and nob the sixth judge of the Supreme Court, as has been stated. The same learned person who gives the above view of the case thinks that Judges of the Supreme Court, if the above facts are proved, will have no alternative but to find on the habeas corpus that the conviction was good, that Mr. Edwards did nob act ultra vires, having been properly appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court. If they will find upon contention that Mr. Edwards is, according to law, a Judge of the Supreme Court the question of the Judge's salary would arise, and if Mr. Justice Williams' appointment is invalid he is in the unenviable position of being unprovided for as regards salary. Opinion says that if this is the upshot, of the whole affair there will be no alternative for the Government but to bring in a Bill to validate Mr. Justice Williams'appointment and the whole of his judicial acts.