HINDU BARRISTER

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10962, 26 July 1921, Page 4

HINDU BARRISTER

ADMISSION REFUSED APPLICATION TO PRACTISE AS SOLICITOR. FIJI STRIKE RIOTS. The judgment of the Full Court was delivered by His Honour ,Mr Justice Sim, Acting-Chief Justice, yesterday, on the application of Manilal Maginlal, doctor, a Hindu barrister, for admission as a barxisWr and solicitor of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. There were also present Their Honours Mr Justice Hosting, Mr Justice Stringer. Mr Justice Reed, and Mr Justice Adams. The applicant was a barrister-at-law of the Middle Temple in England, a barrister-at-law of the Supreme Court of Mauritius, and a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Fiji. He had passed an examination in the statute law of New Zealand, so far as it differs from the law of England, and he was entitled to be admitted as a barrister and solicitor, if the court was satisfied as to his character.

THE QUESTON GF CHARACTER. The answer to the question whether the applicant, was a person of good character, said the judgment, depended on the view taken by the court as to the conduct of the applicant while in practice in Fiji, and in particular as to his connection-with the .strike in February, 1920, among the Indian labourers employed in Fiji. HIS PART IN FIJI RIOTS. “That strike was accompanied by ; lawlessness and violence, and resulted in charges being* made against about 200 Indians of various offences, such as wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, riot, unlawful assemblies, bridge-breaking, and cutting telephone wires. The appellant is himself an Indian, having been born in the State of Baroda. He practised as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Fiji from November, 1912, until March, 1920. The allegation made against him is that ,he was the prime mover in the strike in question. The fact that a 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 question, and instigated the riots and disturbances which accompanied it, he cannot claim very well to be a person of good character. The applicant denies that he 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. .He occupied, he admits, .a position of prominence and influence among the Indian population of Fiji, including those concerned in the strike and riots, and laboured diligently, he. says, to improve the conditions existing in regard to indentured labour and other matters affecting his countrymen. He says emphatically that ho has always ! been a peace-loving and -law-abiding 1 citizen, and has always and everywhere amoncst his countrymen counselled peaceful and constitutional methods to obtain redress of their grievances. RESIDENCE PROHIBITED. “That, however, was not the view of his character and actions taken by the Governor of Fiji, Sir Cecil Hunter R-odwell, for on March 27th, 1920, Has Excellency, with the advice of his executive -council, made an order under the Peace and Good Order Ordinance of Fiji, prohibiting the applicant from residing or beffing wit-bin all or any of certain specified districts of the colony for the space of two years, these districts being the Island of Vitalevn, Hie Island of Ovai-au, and the Province of Macuata. The ground on which the order was expressed to be made was that the applicant was ‘dangerous to the pence and good order of the colony.’ This order was made, as the telegram of March 29th, 1920, from the Governor to the Secretary of State shows, in connection with the recent Indian disturbances, and in his dispatch of Mm-ph 12th, 1920, to the Secretary of State, describing these disturbances, the Governor refers to the applicant -as having -been already under suspicion, and says that he ‘is now regarded beyond all reasonable doubt, as being the prime mover in the agitation.’ ” COMMISSIONER’S FINDING. Their Honours referred to the finding of'Mr Scott, K. 0., who was retained bj the Fiji Government to investigate the strike, that the applicant was “disaffected to His Majesty the King,” and “unfit for admission as a barrister of the Supreme Court of New Zealand.” 'This conclusion was supported by the evidence of Mr Ellis, a Fiji barrister, and Mr Goulding, an Auckland solicitor, who practised' there. Mr Hayes, who practised as a surveyor in Fiji, was of opinion that the applicant was “the primiaipal agitator” in the riots. DeaLing with the affidavits in the applicant's favour, Their Honours said there was difficulty in being satisfied as to the value of these opinions, although there was no doubt that the witnesses were honest in their opinions. “We find it difficult to believe that all the authorities in Fiji were so utterly mistaken as to the applicant’s character and activities.” FAILED TO PROVE CHARACTER. “The applicant has failed to discharge the onus which lies on him of proving affirmatively that he is a person of good character, and worthy to be admitted as a barrister and solicitor,” concluded Their Honours, in refusing the application. Mr P. J. O’Regan appeared for the applicant and Mr H. P. Richmond for the Auckland Law Society.