"AN ACT OF TYRANNY."

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14223, 20 November 1909, Page 8

"AN ACT OF TYRANNY."

THE CROWN AND LITIGATION.

[BY TELLGBAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

Wellington, Friday. Speaking in the House of Representatives this afternoon Mr. Massey said the Crown Suits Act might be amended. The present state of affairs in regard to that Act was far from satisfactory, and the proper position was that a State . Department should be liable to be sued like a private individual. i

Sir Joseph Ward, in reply, said that the tendency to multiply suits against State Departments must be guarded against. It would be easy to keep lawyers employed indefinitely in this way, but the Government should not render this possible. Juries generally were in favour of the individual as against the State, and if the way was opened to these suits the" country would have to pay a heavy cost. The Government had no intention of making any material alteration in the Crown Suits Act in the way of allowing State Departments to be sued by individuals without the permission' of the Crown. - ,

: Mr Herdman denied the suggestion of the Prime Minister that the • demand for the reform of ; the Crown Suits Act was being made by interested persons. He personally was v asked by an agriculturist to press the question, and not by any member of the legal profession. When the Government entered : into business and competed against individuals it should be put upon the" same level as* the latter. He quite recognised that in certain cases the Crown should ,be " protected against litigation. i Mr. Baume expressed like opinions to those of Mr. Herdman on the Crown Suits Act and combated ' the Prime Minister's 'attitude on .',' the question. : It would, he said, be an infamous thing that if a man were injured while working for a State Department the Government was not to be held liable. f v ,-"■'. - •*.•<>'

i The Prime Minister said that if the demand were acceded to all sorts of absurd law suits would be brought against the State. There was a tendency to, institute frivolous actions of this kind all over the country. • , v Mr. Massey considered the arguments used by Sir Joseph Ward were weak. If juries were biassed in favour of individuals as against the State actions could be decided by a judge. To debar such suits was an act of tyranny such as no free people should submit to. It was unfortunately true ; that numerous petitions I were received by Parliament from people for compensation, but this was simply due to the fact that the petitioners could not obtain justice in a court of law. ; ' The Hon. :R. McKenzie spoke of the compensation claims referred to by various members, .' and entered into details of same. He defended the attitude taken by the Government ; thereon. Messrs. Field, Hanan, and Wright expressed disappointment at the Government's attitude. ■■ JAN INJURED MOTORMAN. 'In the evening, when the House went into ; consideration of class 1 of the EstiLegislative , Department's salaries and ■ other charges, £1350— Massey moved a reduction of the vote. by £5, as an indication that the Crown Suits Act should : be amended to allow persons or firms to recover compensation against the . State in cases of injury for \ which State Departments were responsible. ' Messrs. Luke and McLaren, in supporting the "amendment, referred \to ' the case of Barton, the* Wellington tram driver,, who, though injured for life by being run into by a State coal motor, ha"d received no compensation. The Prime Minister said he was; astounded at two members of the House, who were also Wellington City Councillors,' endeavouring to blame the Government when the Council should have done its duty in the matter. The Council had acted in a discreditable manner. Referring to Barton's case, the Prime Minister said his friends should sue individual members of the Council. The Government always paid- compensation to workers injured in its employment. If there was-any claim against the Government it was by the city corporation, not by Barton. The Council should have paid compensation to Barton, and then taken action against the Government. The Wellington corporation had- acted in a inhumane manner in refusing Barton the full amount of compensation in the first instance, and suggesting that he should take action against the Government. Mr. Baume supported the amendment. The Hon. R. McKenzie, in opposing the amendment, said no member could cite a case,in which.any person had an equitable claim against the Government without receiving compensation; To open the door to blackmailers would be a mistake. He would not refer to lawyers, hon. mem- | bers could form their own conclusions.

Mr. Fisher outlined the case of Barton, who was driving a tram, when he was struck by a motor lorry driven by an employee of the State Coal Depot. He was covered by insurance in common with all other motorists, and also came under the Workers' Compensation Act. Barton's case was taken to the Supreme Court and judgment was given in his favour; but the judge decided that it was barred under the Crown Suits Act. The motion was designed to force the Crown to grant equitable consideration in such cases. Mr. T. E. Taylor supported the amendment „on the ground that as the State had entered the competitive world it should cease to act as judge and jury in such cases as those referred to by members. '■■.';*''

The Prime Minister said the result of carrying the amendment would be the closing of the State coal yards. If ever a man employed therein could bring an action against the State, then the State yards would bs handicapped as against private coal yards. If Mr. Taylor's theory were given effect to it would mean the closing up of State departments, and a

narrowing instead of widening State activities. , ; ■ "' - Mr. Hogan opposed the- amendment. The object of the motion, he said, was not to assist Barton; but to kill State en-

terprise. ' ■ '■■ . - ■ Mr. Hemes supported the amendment. He. was willing to confine it to cases where the State came into competition with individual enterprise. On the amendment being put it was rejected by 29 votes to 25. The following is the division list: — , Noes: Messrs. Arnold, Buxton, Carroll, Clark (teller), Colvin, Craigie, Davey, Dillon, Ell, Fowlds, Graham, Hall, Hogan (teller), Hogg, Jennings, Laurenson, R. McKenzie, T. Mackenzie, Ngata, Par at a, Poole, Reed, Ross, Seddon, Smith, Stallworthy, Te Rangihiroa, Ward, Witty. Ayes: Anderson, -Baume, Buick, Dive, Field, Fisher, Fraser, Guthrie, Hardy (teller), Herries, Hine, Lang, Luke (teller), McLaren, Malcolm, Mander, Massey, Newman, Nosworthy, Pcarce, Phillipps, Scott, T. E. Taylor, G. Thomson, Wright.