HINDU AS BARRISTER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17843, 26 July 1921, Page 6

HINDU AS BARRISTER.

ADMISSION REFUSED.

FULL COURT'S DECISION.

FIJIAN STRIKE ECHO. [BX TtLEOEAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION".] WELLINGTON. Monday. The Full Court gave judgment this morning in connection with the application hy Manila), a- Hindu barrister, to be admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Mr. tfustice Sim, Acting-Chief Justice, delivered the judgment. In its judgment tjhe Court said: — " The fact that this man has taken part in a strike is not in itself an objection to his admission as a barrister and solicitor. Whether or not it is an objection must depend on the circumstances of the particular case. If the applicant here was the prime mover in the strike in Fiji last year, and instigated the riots and disturbance which accompanied it, he cannot claim very well to; be a person of good character. The applicant denies ne was the prime mover in the strike in question, and swears that when the strike began he was in the district of Ba, 140 miles away from Suva." The judgment quotes the action of Sir C. Is. Bod well, Governor of Fiji, in prohibiting the applicant from being in certain parts of Fiji for two years, on the ground that he was dangerous to the peace and good order of the colony, and his description of Manila! as bein? " regarded beyond all reasonable doubt as being the prime mover in the agitation." Robert Scott, K.C., of the Supreme Court, Fiji, had reported that after inquiry he had formed a strong opinion that the applicant was the cause of the disturbance, and his presence in certain districts of the colony was dangerous to peace and good order, and that he was disaffected to His Majesty the King. In another paragraph Scott had said he believed the applicant to be unfit for admission as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. This opinion was supported by the evidence of Ellis, a Fiji barrister, Golding, now of Anckland, and formerly practising in Fiji, Hayes, of Auckland, and other witnesses, whose statements are summarised in the judgment. Affidavits lor Applicant. "Applicant's answer to the case against him is a number of affidavits by persons who express the opinion he is of good character, and fit to be admitted, as a barrister a,'nd solicitor. 'Some of them express the opinion also that he was not the cause of the strike. "Among these are Bartram and MoCombs, both members of the New Zealand Parliament, who visited Fiji as members of the Parliamentary party in March, 1920. Each of them says he made independent inquiries on the spot from European and Indian sources concerning the Indian strike, and came to the conclusion that the applicant was not the cause of the strike, riots, and disturbances in any sense, principal, subordinate, err auxiliary. " We have no donbt that all these witnesses who have given evidence on behalf of the applicant are quite honest in the opinions they expressed. Tile difficulty lies in being sa-tisfied on the value of these opinions. That depends, of course, on the means; of knowledge possessed by these witnesses. If they are right in their conclusion, then the applicant suffered a grave iniustice at the hands of the authorities in Fiji. They drove him out of Fin as a dangerous agitator, when, according to his own account of himself, he was doing his best to promote peace and goodwill in the colony. Value of the Evidence. " We find it difficult to believe that all the authorities in Fiji were so 'utterly mistaken as to the applicant's character and activities. There is no* question as to the integrity and standing of the witnesses who have given evidence against the applicant, and they doubtless, have spoken with a due sense of their*-respon-sibility in the matter. A witness such as Scott was in the position to acquire reliable information on the subject, and his evidence is entitled, therefore, to great weight.; and must necessarily outweigh the evidence of witnesses who, however honest, have not his means of knowledge. If Scott and other witnesses who have given evidence against x the applicant are right in their conclusion, then the applicant, is not a fit and proper person to be admitted as a barrister or solicitor of this Court. We are not convinced that these witnesses and also the authorities in Fiji a.re all mistaken in their conclusion, and the applicant, therefore, has failed to discharge the onus which lies on him of proving affirmatively that he is a person of cood character, and worthy to be ndmitted as a barrister ajjjd solicitor. His amplication for admission is refused."