ASKED TO RESIGN

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 90, Issue 167, 20 July 1946, Page 5

ASKED TO RESIGN

CHAIRMAN OF LAND SALES COMMITTEE ACTION OF MINISTER. Hamilton, July 18. Following a request from the Minister of Lands, Mr. Skinner, for the chairman of the Hamilton Land Sales Committee (Mr. Lewis) to resign, the Hamilton District Law Soeitey has taken up the matter. The society holds that there was “unjustified official interference with an officer exercising a judicial function.’’ The Minister, in his letter to Mr. Lewis, stated that he had reluctantly come to the conclusion that Mr Lewis was not rightly disposed to, nor had a true appreciation of, the principles which the Act sought to apply. “Moreover,’’ the letter added, “on several occasions it would appear that your dealings with Crown officers and witnesses have been biased and unduly harsh.’’

Mr. Skinner, in his original letter to Mr. Lewis, dated May 7, stated that on several occasions his attention had been drawn to Press reports of meetings and decisions of the Hamilton Land Sales Committee.

“I asked for official reports,” the Minister stated, “and, after considering them carefully, have reluctantly come to the conclusion that you are not rightly disposed to, nor have a true appreciation of, the principles which the Act seeks to apply. “Moreover, on several occasions it would appear that your dealings with Crown officers and witnesses have been unduly harsh. “In view of these facts, neither I nor the Administration can have the necessary confidence in your chairmanship that is necessary for the effective operation of the Act. “As I do not wish to create a situation that may cause you the slightest public embarrassment, I respectfully suggest that you tender your resignation from the office of chairman. of the Hamilton Land Sales Committee.” SHOCKED BY IMPLICATIONS

Stating that he was greatly shocked by the implications of the Minister’s letter, Mr. Lewis, in reply, stated that he was previously under the impression that the committee got through its work quite well. It seemed to him that this was confirmed by the department’s offer to place members on an annual retainer instead of payment per day.

“As to complaints against me, of which, and by whom made, I am ignorant, I can safely say I am in sympathy with the Act, especially that part dealing with the settlement of servicemen, and I thought I had been co-operative as required by the Act,” Mr. Lewis added.

“I made the necessary declaration to act judicially, and my attitude has been m conformity therewith. “To adopt the Crown valuation in all cases would have reduced the committee to the position of a rubber stamp. I deny I have been biased against Crown witnesses and treated them harshly find unjustly. There is always the right of appeal, and to date there has been only one successful appeal against decisions of this committee, and in that case the committee wrongly reduced the price below that of the Crown value, and no opposition was tendered at the hearing.

“To tender my resignation, as suggested, would be an admission of failure to which I cannot subscribe,” the letter added. In a further letter to the Minister, Mr. Lewis wrote: “The fact that officers of the registry and witnesses in the persons of Crown valuers have been consulted and encouraged to criticise me in my judicial position is something novel in the conception of the administration of justice in this country, and I cannot see it happening, say, with the Department of Justice.”

Mr. Lewis added that, in view of allegations made at a protracted interview with the Minister and various officers that it was common talk in the legal, profession that he (Mr. Lewis) had a bias against the Crown and a bias in favour of vendors, he had asked a number of prominent solicitors Io meet and go fully into the matter and intimate to him frankly their opinion. LAW SOCIETY VIEW

The Hamilton District Law Society had inquired into the allegations and taken affidavits from law practitioners in the district, and the society had submitted a memorandum to the Minister in which it had stated, inter alia:—

“After having given full consideration to all the material put before it, my council has concluded that, both as to the manner in which Mr. Lewis was attacked and as to the fact that he was called upon to tender his resignation, two important and vital principles of national justice were contravened. “As to the first, the chairman has been, in truth, condemned without being informed of any specific charges against, him ,and therefore without knowing or being given an opportunity of refuting them; while as to the second, there was unjustified official interference with an officer exercising a judicial function. “Those matters call for redress, and my council requests you to remedy the wrong complained of and to do what is Just and right in the premises,-' the society concluded.