APPEAL COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 256, 27 September 1929, Page 2

APPEAL COURT

CASE AGAINST CROWN. Per Press Association. WELLxNGiUiN, toept. 27. The Appeal Court to-day was engugecl in nearing the case of i) rtdeneK oouti Kayiier, of Auckland, dental ouigeon, against the Crown. on the rseucii were the Chief Justice (non. iu. Myers) and justices ilerdman, Adams, McGregor and Ostler. :ar A. Grey, K.C., appeared for suppliant, and with him Air B. James. Mr A. ran- appeared lor the Crown, and with him Mr A. E. Currie. iu January or this year, Mr iiayner nled a petition of right alleging that in Uctouor, m 26, he nad entered into an agreement with die Commissioner or otuie porosis to give the latter an option over certain timber on land in ino xaun ’iutuKau rorest, Aucniand, ior a consideration ot £iSo,UUO; and rurther, that this money was not paid when due. The Crown then hied a plea denying tile contract and asserting tnat it tho contract should be proved, AJr ltayners title to the land was .not in order. In Aiarch, Air ltayner obtained an order for discovery against the Crown, which then moved io have the order set aside. This motion has now been movtd in the Court or Appeal ior argument. At tins stage, tho case centres solely around the much debated point among legal practitioners as to whether or not an order for discovery can be niado against the Crown. Mr Pair, opening ior the Crown, said that compliance with an order ior discovery made against tho Crown "under the provisions of our code of civil procedure would necessitate the making of an affidavit by His Aiajesty in person. This would be a novelty in our history. Prima facie it was evident that discoveries did not lie against the Crown, and, accordingly, it was necessary tor the suppliant to point out something in the Crown Suits Act or the code of civil procedure which took away tho prerogative of the Crown and gave to a subject the right to discoveries. He had found it impossible, he concluded, to find a case on record where, at common law, discoveries had been granted against the Crown suing as such. Air Grey said that the English cases and arguments mentioned by the So-licitor-General did not apply m New Zealand, owing to the fact that the provisions of the New Zealand Grown Suits Act were different to tho I etitions of Right Act (England). He submitted that, having regard to the language of tho Crown Suits Act, ana in view of recent Australian decisions on statutes very similar to our own, tho right of tho Crown to resist ciiscovery had been taken away. A subject suing the Crown was in the same position, and entitled to the same rights, as a subject suing a subject, save where the statute expressly provided otherwise. . . The Court reserved its decision.