JUDGES AS POLICY-HOLDERS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 3442, 25 May 1898, Page 4

JUDGES AS POLICY-HOLDERS.

On the opening of argument in the case Mayor and others of Auckland v. Speight, in which, the main question to be decided was the ratability of the Government Life Insurance Department’s offices in that city, the three Judges of the Supreme Court who constituted the Court of Appeal agreed, with the consent of parties, to hear the case, although two of them, Mr Justice Denniston and Mr Justice Edwards, were policy-holders with the department. In his judgment in the case Mr Justico Pennefuther, the' third Judge, said the first question to be considered was whether the fact of being a policy-holder was a sufficient interest to amount to an incapacity, and secondly, if it did, whether it was merely a personal incapacity which could be waived by the consent of the parties, or amounted to a want of jurisdiction which could not be waived even by consent. It was true that if Mr Speight was rated he would probably be indemnified by the department, which would to soma extent reduce its profits, and therefore the next bonus for the policy-holders would be to an almost inappreciable extent reduced. On the other hand it might almost as well be argued that every Judge who occupied a house in any city in New Zealand was personally interested on the other side, for if the ratable area was reduced by removing the buildings occupied by the Government Life Insurance Depart* ment from the roll, the rates on the rest would be increased. It was very doubtful whether interests so remote must be taken into consideration at all; but he was clearly of opinion that if they must the result was only a personal incapacity which could be waived. It might be observed that if the other view were adopted the result would be very serious, as so large a number of judges and magistrates were in the same position that it would be almost impossible to form a court in the colony competent to deal with cases in which the Government Life Insurance Department was concerned. In the present case some "of the Judges in this Court were also policy-holders in the Government Life Insurance Department; but the counsel on both aides having waived the objection of interest, if any existed, the Court had consented to hear the case.