CLAIM FOR WAGES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18897, 25 June 1923, Page 9

CLAIM FOR WAGES

ACTION AGAINST THE CROWN. A TEST CASE. At the Supreme Court on Saturday Mr Justice Sim gave judgment in the case Janies Hamer v. The Muddy Terrace Sluicing Co. for £lll for - wages registered under a lien The case was taken as a test case. His Honor in giving judgment said: This is a case stated for the opinion of this court under section 335 of "Tlje Mining Act, 19U8.” Hamer has registered *a lien under section' 214 of the Act against the special claim and water-race of the Muddy Terrace Sluicing Company (Ltd.), in respect of wages owing to him by that company, and has applied to the warden under section 217 of the Act for an order causing the said privileges to be sold in terms of that section. His application was opposed on behalf of his Majesty the King, who holds securities given by the company for moneys advanced under the provisions of part X of the Mining Act. The question to be determined is whether or not Hamer is entitled by virtue of section 215 of the Act to obtain priority over the securities held by the Crown. It was contended by Mr Bowler that the Crown was bound by this section, and that Hamer was entitled, therefore, to priority. ’The Acts’ Interpretation Act, 1908,” provides in section 6 (j) that “no provison or enactment in any Act shall in any manner affect the rights of his Majesty, his heirs or successors unless it is expressly stated therein that his Majesty shall be bound thereby.” The Legislature has not declared in express terms that the Crown is to be bound by “The Mining Act, 1908,” but it must have intended that the Crown should be bound by many of the provisions contained therein; such, for example, as those which authorise dealings with Crown lands. In the case of Acta ouch as Land Acts and Mining Acts, the only reasonable construction to put on the provision in question of the Interpretation Act is,' I think, that suggested by Mr Justice Chapman in re Buckingham (1922), N.Z.L.R., 71—viz., to construe it as declaring that such Acts are not binding on the Crown unless by reasonable intendment the Legislature has shown an intention that the Crown shall he bound. The • question then is whether or not the. Legislature has shown such an intention in connection with the general nriority conferred on liens by section 215 of the Act. That the Legislature had no such intention in 1908 with regard to securities given in connection with advances made under Part X of the Act is clear from section 361. contained in that part, bv subsection 2 of which priority was expressly conferred on the Crown. It was contended, however, by Mr Bowler that the amendments made in this section and section 360 by the Amendment Act of 1913 have had the' effect of taking away any priority the Crown may have had, and that the Crown is now postponed to prior encumbrances and to the holders of registered liens. It is difficult to give any intelligible meaning to the words which have been added to section 361 bv the Act of 1913, but i*t is impossible, I think, to give to them the effect contended for by counsel in ' connection wjth liens. So far as liens are concerned the Crown appears to be left in the same position as before—via., that it has priority over them in connection with securities under Part X of the Act. That is the general answer which is given to the. questions submitted, without expressing any opinion as to the points raised by Mr Adams in connection with the first question submitted. The costs of the case are fixed at £5 5s and disbursements, which aro to be paid by Hamer to . the Crown. Mr E. R. Bowler (Gore) appeared for Hamer and Mr F. B. Adaraa for the Crown.