THE MEIKLE CASE.
DKFJiKIffiD UNTIL NEXT SESSION. JUDGES TO CON FEU. Jolm. iiiim s M.eildo’s again occu-;-:cd I,lie aiU'ril.Joa of the Hoiusc ycslerSir Jcv-cph Ward mud bo had commn-n.-'-abd with tlio Chief Justice regarding Hi" proposed legislation iji respect to :iio Aleilcio cuse, in. which ho had suggested that Lh,o Judgon at the fitting of the Appeal Court in March next nhould be asked to prepare legislation with a view Lc> carrying out ilio rccorumomla-i-ions of tlie Uoyal Commission. so fin to nimble Barliumeut to pass legislation on the subject next session, The Chief Jnirtieo replied that ho would ask tho Judges to not accordingly, anti to state what in their opinion ought to be the principle followed in any legislation that might bo framed to carry out the Commission's recorn mondatinmi; ho would at so .wk the Jridgen' views in rcganl to the payment of com ponnation. The Uovornmont, added the Brernior, proposed to give oheet to what the Judges would recommend, anil defer legislation anti! next &<**{ion* Ho did thin for the reason that it number of members had informed him that they wore determined to oppose any einglo mcustire dealing with Mciido's (yu-jo in particular. Ho desired, on. behalf of Parliament, to thank his Honor the Chief J nwtico for his prompt reply bo his (the Rromiorte) letter. 1 Mr Massey said he had listened with some surprise to the Premier's statement. A Hill over which Parliament had apemfc considerable time was to bo dropped, anti instead the Court of Appeal was bo bo asked to prepare a Bill lor Pariianuait. The wrong tiling was Iwung done. The Ik/cutivo was abrogating ita functions, ami it alono should be roK|K)nsil>lo for the legislation submitted to Parliament.
Mr Hornsby agreed with tho oonrsn hikeri by the Premier. There had boon an attempt made in the country to attribute personal feed bug to those who had opposed this BUI. That was not coim’t. VVliat the opponents of the Bill Juui contended for was that there should bo, not a particular Bill but a general measure, and in that they were supoortod by Judges of the Supremo Court. Mr Fisher regretted that the Premier’s pro petition was a concession to the tactics adopted by half a dozen members of tiio House. This was tantamount to saying that any half a dozen. members could go to the Premier and say that a Bill must bo put off. He believed the Premier would find himself in the same position next session. Mr Remington reminded the House that tide was the first attempt at legislation to accomplish the object of criminal appeal* Members who had opposed the BUI took a stand that the member for ’Wellington Central could never realise, Mr T. Mackenzie asked where Mr Fisher was when this Bill was before the committee. He had bolted. If they wanted a men te condemn his friend, the speech of Mr Fisher had condemned Moiktc. The member for Wellington Central liardly hod a word to say on the BUI that would carry conviction with members of the House. Mr iluiime did not think that the responsibility of fixing the compensation 0.. f v!, (; t 0 ho taken away from members oi "the House. It was not a fair thing to jisk the Judges of the Supreme Court to assess the damages. Meikle wao entillcd to such damages as tho conscience of the Dominion allowed him, and that was reflected better by a committee of the iloifao than by a Bench of Supremo Court Judges. Sir Joseph Ward said he was exceedingly sorry to hoar the leader of tlu> Opposition say that the Government w«jS abrogating its duty. Quito irrespective of what tho Judges of the Supremo Covirt did, the Government must finally deal with this matter, and thus there cvmld bo no abrogation of duty. The Government had not shown any want of fairness in this matter. The half a dozen members referred to by Mr Fisher were not tho only members who opposed this legislation, and he denied, that his proposition was a concession to them. Twenty-eight members opposed the Bill, and they could sit there for three months and not got it through under tho conditions which had "boon revealed. . The Premier's proposal was agreed to.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM19071108.2.57
Bibliographic details
New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 6361, 8 November 1907, Page 6
Word Count
714THE MEIKLE CASE. New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 6361, 8 November 1907, Page 6
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the New Zealand Times. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.