DO SUPERINTENDENTS EXIST?

Oamaru Mail, Volume I, Issue 176, 13 November 1876, Page 2

DO SUPERINTENDENTS EXIST?

This question was incidentally raised in the Supreme Court at Christchurch on the 6th inst., wiien Mr. Justice Johnston expressed the opinion that Superintendents no longer exist. The case was Keily v. Rolleston (Superintendent of Canterbury), a rule nisi calling on the plaintiff to shot? cause why the verdict the eomnion jury had given in his favor should not be aet aside, and the Prest reports the disoussion that ensued. Mr. Garrick said that Mr. Joynt and himself had agreed to enlarge the rule for a time. His Honor asked Mr. Garrick for whom he appeared. Mr. Garrick said for Mr. Rolleston. His Honor : As Superintendent. The declaration was expressly amended in order to bring in tne Superintendent of the Province. Now, as the Abolition Act is in force, there is no such person a*

3«intend, nS ; yon have, therefore, no Jwt standi? Mr. Warrick—you cannot ap- - pear for a person who does not exist. Mr. Joynt : The case, your Honor, pasHes over to the Queen. Mr. (Jarrick : I can, ttipn, appear fur the Queen. His Honor : £ do not think yort can, Mr. Garrick, without some wt- ! thority. Mr. Garriek : I have communicated with Mr. Rolltston, who has instructed mu. If is Honor : As Superintendent t Mr. Oarrick t No, your Honor, as the agunt of the General Government in the district of Canterbury, and thus ru predicting the Queen. His Honor : 1 don't think that is sufficient to give yon a tocitu sHitndi in this Court, bee vase I am now asktd to hear a case in which one of the persons has no statm here, because I am obii;ed judicially to be aware that the Superintendent is politically d*ad. f will allow the matter to stand over until after the sitting of the Cotiit oc Appeal, without any prejudice to tiie points of law raised in the case.