LIFE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1367, 12 May 1898, Page 29

LIFE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT.

JUDGES AS POLICY-HOLDERS.

DISCUSSION IN COURT OF APPEAL

An interesting discussion took place in the Court of Appeal on Thursday afternoon, when the case " The Mayor, Councillors, and citizens of the city of Auckland, appellants, and "William James Speight, respondent," was called, on. This is a case in which the Auckland City Council sued Mr Speight, as manager at Auckland for the Government Life Insurance Department, for .£9B 16s 3d, for rates for the year 1896 to 1897, and penalty for non-payment of the same. The property on which the ratas were claimed is that of the department in Auckland, and consists of offices in its occupation and offices let by it to tenants. Mr Brabant, S.M., gave judgment for the defendant, with costs. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, where Mr Justice Crmolly expressed the opinion that the department's property could not be ratable while in its own occupation. In the course of argument it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that any rates payable by the respondent would in fact be paid out of the funds accruing for the benefit of the policyholders and not out of the funds of the Crown ; and this was allowed by the counsel for the respondent to be the case. Upon this Mr Justice Conolly interposed a question whether he could hear and determine the case, ho being an interested party as being a policyholder. Considering that he was compelled to decline jurisdiction, Mr Justice Conolly dismissed the appeal without costs. The plaintiffs now bring the case before the Court of Appeal. Mr Martin is appearing for the appellants, and Mr Theo. Cooper, with him Mr Tread well, for the respondent. The Chief Justice is not sitting in the case in consequence, it is understood, of his decision in a case brought by the Wnicoa County Council. Mr Justice Denniston.and Mr Justice Edwards are, like Mr Justice Conolly,Jpolicyholdors with the Government Life Insurance Department. The appeal was yesterday called before Mr Justice Danniston, Mr Justice Edwards and Mr Justice Pennefather. Mr Justice Edwards said he would like to know whether there was any objection to the Bench. He was a policyholder with the department, and to a very large extent.

Mr Justice Denniston said he was also a policyholder. Mr Martin said that if being a policyholder was a disability as regarded a member of the Court, he was prepared to waive it. Mr Justice Denniston: Can you ? Mr Martin: I submit I can. Mr Cooper: We do not raise the question at all. Of course, so far as the department is concerned, it is a very important question, because if policyholders with the department who occupy judi3ial positions are disqualified, by reason of their holding those policies, from oxercising their judicial functions in oa«e3 to which the department is a party, then I am afraid the department could never get a case through the Courts. Mr Justice Denniston: Is that being duly taken note of for the purpose of advertisement? (Laughter) Mr Cooper said he]) was:£afi'aid th<> authorities were against the waiving or disability. Ho was quite prepared,,on behalf of the department, to waive the question ; but he SV&S bound to briny under thu notice of the Court a doubt expressed by Lord Brougham. ' He cited the cases ot Dimeo v. Grand Junction Canal Company. (3 2.. of fr)i'a»4 tatefoa aii<£ STeWsfrWw-

tern Railway Company v. Lindsay (3 McQueen's H. of L. Cases). Mr Justice Denniston said he thought the question should be waived ; he would be prepared to take the risk. Otherwise they would bo left in an absurd position. Mr Justice Edwards : We could not get a Court of Appeal. Mr Justice Denniston : Companies of the same nature would either have to have a special tribunal created to hear cases to which they were parties or go without the law.

Mr Cooper: Or the Legislature would have to interfere.

Mr Justice Denniston: I am talking of the existing 1 state of things. Mr Martin referred to the case of Wakefield Board of Health v. West Hiding and Grimsby Railway Company (7 Best and Smith). Mr Justice Denniston : It is a ridiculous thing. The interest of members of the Court in the sum involved here is not only fractional, but infinitesimal. It is almost incapable «f being represented in figures. The Court adjourned till next morning.