THE OHINEMURI LICENSING CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2470, 7 April 1909, Page 5

THE OHINEMURI LICENSING CASE.

ARGUMENT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, April G. At the Court of Appeal, .continuing the argument in the case of Cock and others v. the Attorney-General and Justice Sim. Mr. Skerrett stated that >... commissions to inquire into public mat- ; ters were not unknown. The Moseley Commission had been set up by a prirate English gentleman to inquire into the state of education in the United J.i States, but if such commissions inter- ; : fered with private- rights, they would quickly be prohibited by the courts. He quoted authorities to support the'., six propositions of the law already 4 cited, the greater part of the authorities 4 being from 200 to 3CO years old. AIT. Skerrett, continuing his argu- h meiit, contended that the commission was not authorised by the words of section 2 of “The Commissions Inquiry Act, 1008.” That Act was to regulate \\ the issuing of commissions, and was'-in-tended to limit and define the Royal “ prerogative. The Governor had no power, under his commission or the : Royal instructions issued to him. which wore published n the New Zealand Gaz- : .i; - ' ette of 1908, vol. 1., page IGIO. to issue such a commission. A licensing committee was a judicial body, exercising judicial powers', and bribery of a member of such a commttiee would be pun- - j ishable under section 126 of the “Crim- - es Act, 1908.” as judicial corruption. The offence into which the. commission -[ was authorised ta inquire was, therefore, cognisable by the ordinary criminal Courts of the Dominion, and it was illegal and unconstitutional for the Ex- . ; ecutive to set up a Court to oust.the M jurisdiction of criminal Courts. Mr. Baume. K.C., following Mr. M Skerrett, contended that it was illegal for the Crown to issue any commission •n - \ of .inquiry only, even in a case where no charge of crime against individuals was." concerned. The prerogative, of the Crown did not extend to any act which was mischievous or injurious to the _]■ King's subjects, or which would deprive a subject of private right. Prerogative ; u was not now retained by the King for : ,;f his personal benefit, but was allowed to exist because it was beneficial to [g tlie public.' Therefore it could only be j exercised constitutionally and for the d, benefit of the public. This commission purported to deprive the plaintiffs of' the primary right common to every -i, British subject, of liberty, for they : j would be forced to attend and perhaps >! to answer questions which might expose them to the peril of a criminal , | prosecution. Mr. Chapman, K.C.. on behalf oi -/M the defendants, in opening, companion- . iv ted counsel for the plaintiffs on the ddi- . ,v, genre with which they had searched old , U "iccinils. He contended that the Gov-, J crnor-in-Council had inherited the po.wor out-ide ot the 4 ‘Conun is9ions.a»f “I nquiry Act. 1908/1 to issue a cominis- g sion' of inquiry opon any matter of pub- A lie interest- such :as tin* conduct.-of ftlicensing committee.