CASE AGAINST JUDGE EDWARDS.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XL, Issue 9086, 19 May 1891, Page 2

CASE AGAINST JUDGE EDWARDS.

| PER PHESS ASSOCIATION. I ' j In Judge Edwards' case Sir Robert | Stout's address lasted till 4 o'clock. In the . the course of hia argument' he contended that the object in giving Judge ' Edwards the status of judge was to enable- hi ai the better to fulfil the duties as Commissioner. If, therefore, the latter appointment if as at 'an end, so was the judgeship. Mr Yogel, junior counsel, submitted the case could be reduced to four points :—: — (1.) That the Judge must have a salary ; (2), that such salary must be ascertained and established ; (3), that it must be granted before or at the time of the appointment ; (4), that it oould only be established by Parliament.. The Court rose at, 4.20 until Tuesday morning. „, - - ' Mr, Harper for the defence argued that the appointment of Judge Edwards' was legal and'coßstitutionai, and quoted from correspondence between Judge Edwards and the Government of the day, showing that the former was not in favor of accepting the position mi Commissioner alone but made it a condition that be - should also be appointed Judge of the Supreme Court, and if he took the latter alone it showed clearly that he was not to be appointed a temporary or provisional Judge, but a Judge of the Supreme Court. The Commission ofEerod to him as Judge of the Supreme Court had been accepted as such, and everything doDe by him to have a salary ascertained and established. Mr Harper quoted numerous authorities dealing with English Judges, showing that it was not until the reign of William IV. that Judges were placed under the Civil List, and until that time had been dependent on the Crown for salaries. He combatted the argument of the plaintiff's counsel that the ascertain* meat and eatab'ishment of the Judge's salary was necessary before the appointment, and contended that in the appoint menta of Judge? Johnston, Richmond, ami ■

Chapman to tho Bench the Civil List Act I mentioned a lump anm for tho Judges, and no ascertainment was made of tho salaries lo be paid to^ individual Judges. MiHarper said the defence to Sir Robert Stout'a main point on which he relied was that from 1844 to 1882 thero had been no attempt by means of legislation to limit the power of tho appointment of Judges. This he sought to establish by carefully reviewing all the acts on the subject. Some amusement was caused during the proceedings by, a point which "Mr Harper raised, that though the salaries of Judges ■were sought to bo protected from Parliament, it was doubtful whether they really were so, and whether in certain contingencies, such as a " stonewall " or other obstruction, Judges 1 might not havo to suo Government for their salaries. Tho Chief Judge, amidst' some silppressed laughter, said, "You must not frighten us too much, Mr Harper."