CLAIM AGAINST THE RAILWAY DEPARTMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11954, 1 May 1902, Page 6

CLAIM AGAINST THE RAILWAY DEPARTMENT.

AN IMPORTASfT LEGAL POINT. [BY TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] Wellington, Wednesday. An important point was dealt with by the Chief Justice this morning in giving .judgment in chambers on a summons for the discovery of certain documents in connection with the case of Brenda May Barrett, of Hawera, v. the Minister for Railways. The case itself is a claim against the Railway Department for £1400 for injuries sustained by plaintiffan infant, suing through her father. William Barrett—while travelling from 'Hawera, to Pahiatua.. Dealing with the- summons referred to, His Honor said there was no evidence before ffi?n that it would be any injury to the State to make discovery of the documents in the Railway Department relevant to the injury that plaintiff had received. If the railways had been managed by a company it was not contended that discovery could have been resisted. The Minister for Railway's was declared, by section 24 of the Government Railways Act. 1900, to be in the position of a common carrier with all the privileges and liabilities of such, and it might be that, being so...he had no right to resist discovery. Before, however, documents in the possession of a Government Department were refused discovery or production it must appear that they were confidential documents, or some high officer of State must object to their production. Neither of these objections existed in this case. In Hennessy v. Wright certain documents'were produced and, others were refused production on the ground that they were confidential despatches between a Governor and the Secretary of State for the Colonies. There were several cases showing that reports of, for example, a military or naval inquiry, or of a military or naval officer, or of a Royal Commission, would not be ordered to be produced. They were all confidential. In Wright v. Mills the documents sought to be disclosed did not belong to defendant, an Agent-General of a colony, but to his principals, the Government, which was not a defendant, and objected to their production. In another case the Government was not. a party to the suit, and Mr. Justice Wright, in the exercise of statutory discretion, refused to order the Income Tax Department to-produce income tax returns, which were secret and confidential. The Court of Appeal refused to over-rule that decision. In His Honor's opinion the order for discovery in the present case must go. It would be for defendant to say whether there were any reports confidential in their nature that should not be made public. There must be many documents of mere business and routine that •plaintiff was entitled to the discovery of. Costs would be reserved.