DEFEATING JUSTICE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8558, 22 October 1913, Page 6

DEFEATING JUSTICE

It will be seen by a reference to the Supplementary Order Paper of the House of Representatives for Friday, the 10th instant, that the Hon. Mr Massey proposed to move in committee the following new clause in his Land Bill: A. Where the holder of any lease or license to occupy Crown lands heretofore or hereafter granted has exercised or exercises, in respect of such lands or any-' part thereof, a right to acquire the foe-simple conferred. by any Act, and the Crown thereafter exercises a right of resumption of such lands conferred by either the Mining Act, 1908. or the Coal Mines Act. 1908. there shall not ho included in the assessment of tho compensation to be paid by tho Crown pursuant to the provisions of either of tho said Acts the value of any metals, minerals, coal, or oil upon or under such lands, unless the lease or license under which the land was held at the time of the acquisition of the fee-simple conferred upon the holder thereof, expressly or by implication, the right to extract for his own benefit such metals, minerals, coal, or cdl. It will be further remembered that in the Brighton appeal case the Chief Justice decided that, by virtue of Mr Massey’s Land Act of 1912, Brighton was entitled to the minerals, including coal, contained in tho land included in his lease when the lessee converted that lease under the statute into a freehold. It is true a majority of the Court decided otherwise, but it is well known that the case is now being prepared for transmission by way of appeal to the Privy Council. It is a first principle both of law and justice that the Legislature should not intervene to deprive a litigant of such rights as our highest appellate tribunal may decide he is entitled to—and yet there can be no doubt that tho motive of Mr Massey’s proposed amendment was to render Brighton's appeal to tho Privy Council, if successful, absolutely fruitless and abortive. It is quite clear, and indeed it was common ground, that Brighton under his lease had no right, express or implied, to extract for his own benefit the minerals in his land; but on the Chief Justice’s interpretation of the law these minerals became his absolutely whoa ho converted his lease into a freehold, and should tho State later desire to acquire this freehold, it would have •to pay by way of compensation in the usual way for tho minerals the land contained. Mr Massey clearly recognised this, and in the amendment proposed ho desired to empower the State, if Brighton’s appeal succeeded, to take the freehold back from him without paying one shilling for tho minerals, including coal, which had so become his absolute property by virtue of Mr Massey’s own Land Act. In other words, it was tho Prime Minister’s intention that Brighton should he put to all the expense of fighting his appeal before the Privy Council, and if successful there, should then be confronted by this proposed amendment of the law, absolutely depriving him of the fruits of his victory. What is to bo said in view of this sinister attempt to rob a man of his legal rights, of the high pretensions “Reform” has always made of its regard for law and its observance of the canons of fair play, justice and straightforward dealing?