Judge Edwards' Case.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 4978, 20 May 1891, Page 3

Judge Edwards' Case.

j (E)' TKLEOKArn.) [ Wellington, May 19. Mr Harper mentioned that the absence »>f provision for salary did not invalidate the Commission, which having been issued could not be cancelled, unless there was express limitation by the statute of the number of Judges. The only ground on which the commission could possibly be cancelled (in the absence of misconduct) was that the Crown had granted what in law it had no right to grant. In conclusion, he said the appointment was perfectly proper in all its surroundings, and the dignity of the Bench had been upheld. Mr Chapman, also on behalf of the defendant, argued that the correspondence showed Mr Edwards was to be appointed a judge in addition to the commissionership. The constitutional principle invoked by the plaintiffs counsel as to fixing the salary before the appointment derived its force from English statutes, which were not in operation in New Zealand. He contended that the constitutional precedents of England were not applied to the colony, and that the appointment of Mr Edwards stood on exactly the same footing as those of some of his brother Judges. Mr Cooper argued that in the statutes was to be found the reservation of the Crown of the right of appointment of Judges, without any limitation as to number. Section 5 of the Supreme Court Act. 1882, provided that the Court should consist of one Chief Justice and such other Judges as His Excellency shottld from time to time appoint. Mr Cooper claimed that unless the terms of the Act were strained Mr Edwards' appointment could not lie declared invalid. At this st.-tife the Court adjonrned. May 20. Mr Coper finished his speech this morning and Sir Robert Stout began his replv shortly before noon. It is understood that the case will go to the Privy Council, whatever may bo the result. lii replying. Sir Robert Stout argued that the Supreme Court Act, 1882. mustbe read with the Civil List Act, 1573. which established salaries for a chief justice and five puisne judges. He also contended that tlieie was"no contract with Mr Edwards, and if so, it was simply for the Commissionership. In concluding, he thought it was for the benefit of the defendant, the Bench, and the colony, that these proceedings had been taken, and that the case would be, and ought to be a warning to an Executive not to attempt to deal with the high office of a judgeship of the Supreme Court by making it an addendum to a Native Commissioriership, and not to appoint a Judge without frankly consulting Parliament. Tite Court reserved judgment.