The Timaru Herald. TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1891.

Timaru Herald, Volume LII, Issue 5157, 2 June 1891, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1891.

In the Wellington telegrams this morning, under the heading Supreme Court, mention is made of the " dummyism " cases against Coleman Phillips. It will be seen tbat tbe Grand Jury have found true bills against him. One indictment charges him with having incited certain persons to make wilful false declarations, and another, with having aided and abetted the same persons to commit a breach of the Land Act. These cases have aroused a good deal of interest throughout the colony, and we think that the Press Association might have given a BOmewhat fuller abstract of the indictments and of the remarks made by the Chief Justice to the Grand Jury before sending the bills into them for consideration. As far as we can make out, neither of the indictments is for an offence under the Land Act, 1885, or any of its amendments. The inciting and the aiding and abetting are apparently charged as offences under some other statute or against the common law. But the interesting point m what passed yesterday m the Supreme Court is contained m His Honour's remarks. It certainly bas been generally understood that, under tbe provisions of the Land Act, 1885, and its amendments, no person could take np deferred payment land for another. The Chief Justice, however, is reported to have said tbat he had examined the Land Act very carefully, and " could find nothing expressed m its provisions to prevent anyone taking up land for another." He further remarked that the " legislature were cvi dently under the impression that they had made provision m tbe Act to prevent persons obtaining land on deferred payment or perpetual lease 'not exclusively for their own use,' as section 113 had fixed a penalty to be inflicted m the case of anyone taking up land other than for hia own use." Tbe Grand Jury were instructed not to trouble themselves with the law point but to find true bills if tbey considered that the facts were as set out m the indictments. His Honour's remarks appear to have been directed to the second indictment, namely, aiding and abetting certain persons to commit a breach of the Land Aot. Tbe alleged breach no doubt was the aiding and abetting those persons to obtain deferred payment land not for themselves but for the defendant, Coleman Phillips ; , and, as we have seen, tbe learned Judge gave a strong intimation or hint that, m bis opinion, that was no breach at all because the Act did not expressly forbid persons to take up deferred payment land for others. We have looked at the Act and certainly can find no such express provision, though it seems to be implied. What the Act provides is that the applicant shall make a declaration {inter alia) that the land is required for his " own exclusive use and benefit, and not directly or indirectly for the use or benefit of any | other person whomsoever." In the event of any of the statements m the , declaration being false, the selector for. , feits all right to tbe land and all moneys ■ paid m respect of it. We understand the Chief Justice to mean that m order to have rendered tbe defendant liable to i criminal prosecution for aiding and abetting persons to take up deferred payment land for him, the Act should have said plainly that the taking up deferred payment land was illegal and punishable, and not have left the illegality to be inferred from a declaration. With regard to the charge of inciting to make a false declaration there seems to be no technical difficulty. All that is necessary is to prove the fact.

It is said, though the statement needs confirmation, that " the Government intend to send Sir Robert Stout to England to argue the Edwards caße before the Privy Counoil, aad that they rely for precedent on the Ah Toy case, m which the Attorney-General of Viotoria, Mr Wrixon, was sent Home by his Government on a similar mission." There are certain facts which impart an air of probability to this statement. The Premier and Sir Robert Stout are fast friends, and the latter is prompter and general adviser to the Ministry, He was engaged m the Edwards case before the Oourt of Appeal here, and it is known that nothing would please him better than a trip to England. Of course if he could combine business with pleasure, so much the better from his point o£ view. We sincerely trust that this statement as to tbe intention of the Government is not true. Wo hold strongly that the Edwards case ought to go to the Privy Council, but there is no necessity for sending a New Zealand lawyer to argue it. We do not question Sir Robert Stout's ability or professional knowledge and skill, but it is no libel to say that any one of many scoreß of English barristers would represent the New Zealand Government quite ns well as ho would. The caße would have to bo entrusted to counsel of high standing, but even so, the expense would be much less than would be incurred m sending Sir Robert Stoat Home. He is a patriot of course, but a sensible one, and likes to be paid for his work. Ho is not to be blamed on that account, but the country has a right to consider whioh bill would be ' the heavier — that of the English barrister or that of the colonial. It ie certain that if Sir Robert Stout is despatched on this business m any i capaoity whatever, tho affair will be stigmatised as a gross job on the part 'of a Ministry who ever .sinoe they took office have been bragging about their economical proclivities.