The locus standi of Counsel.

The Judge said that the question first to be decided was the right of counsel to appear on behalf of the Crown, and of the Provincial Government. He would hear argument on the point.

Mr. Haggitt was understood to say that there were two special cases in which he appeared for the Provincial Government—the Lighthouse reserve and the Prince's-street reserve. He pleaded a right to appear in these cases. By the 12, 13, 17, and 43 Sections of "The Marine Boad Act," powers were delegated to the Superintendent to define the limits of wharfs, quays, &c., besides having general power under the Act. The 75th Section of "The Native Lands Act," empowered the Governor to lay off roads through Native lands, provided the power ceased within ten years from the issue of the Crown grant, and this power was delegated to the Superintendent. The Provincial Government had paid rent to the Maoris for a portion of the Pilot reserve; and this, he contended, gave him a locus standi. He also alluded to the lands being held in trust, to the Provincial Government deriving revenue from them, and to his having been instructed by the Commissioner of Crown Lands, who was also Chairman of the Waste Land Board, and as such administrative officer of the revenue derived from lands.

Mr.Macassey said that it would be understood that he had no personal objection to counsel appearing for the Provincial Government; but as the matter was put forward as a matter of strict right, he was bound to oppose it. With regard to the general right urged, that of delegation, delegation came from a superior power; but the power that delegated was the only one that had a right to set up a claim. He would grant that, with regard to the Prince's-street reserve, the learned counsel would have a right to appear; but, even then, it could only be for the purpose of ousting the jurisdiction of the Court. With regard to the Lighthouse reserve, the Superintendent possessed only delegated powers, not power inherent or by statute law. In the cases, Robinson v. Reynolds, and Every v. Reynolds, it had been held, upon the question as to whether the defendant, having certain powers delegated, could do certain things, that the power remained in the hands of the superior body —it remained the power of the principal, not the agent. He contended that the Provincial element could have no position so long as the superior body—the Crown—was represented.

Mr.Turton followed up the same argument. He contended that the Commissioner of Crown Lands' duties were defined, and that, under "The Crown Lands Act, 1862," he was a General Government officer. That being the case, be must, if represented at all, be represented by a nominee of the General Government. By "The Marine Board Act," the management and control of reserves for lighthouses were vested in the Governor.

Mr.Haggitt, in reply, pointed but that Sections 31 and 32 of "The Marine Board Act," gave especial powers to the Superintendent to define the limits and boundaries of wharfs, &c.

The Judge said he could well understand that persons using the wharfs paid money to the Provincial Government, but the reason could not apply to lighthouses which were for the benefit of persons who frequently never came near the place. He asked as to the cost of the erection of the lighthouse.

Mr. Turton said he believed the lighthouse had been erected at the cost of the Provincial Government, and had not been purchased by the General Government.

The Judge said that he could not find that the Council for the Province had a locus standi in reference to the Lighthouse reserve; but he would admit him to watch the interests of a body which had expended money on the land. This did not affect the general question; the admission was made as in the case of an individual having spent money on another man's property.

Mr. Turton said that he had just been informed by Mr. Cutten that there was a Crown grant for this very land. Mr. Cutten had gone for it, and for the Crown grant of the Prince's-street reserve.

The Judge: It is very much to be regretted that this information was not given before. It would have saved two hours' argument. There certainly was a want of care in bringing the matters before the Court.

Mr. Haggitt said it was not known that these claims would be made.

page 230

The Judge said that it should have been, and preparation should have been made. The claim had been advertised in the Provincial Government Gazette for weeks.

Mr. Haggitt: In Maori, your Honor.

The Judge: No, in English. There certainly has been carelessness. The representative of the Attorney-General is present, and perhaps he may feel it his duty to take notice of it.

While the Court was waiting for the production of the Crown grants, His Honor retired. Upon resuming his seat, he gave judgment as to the general right of counsel to appear on behalf of the Provincial authorities. He said that by an Act of the General Assembly, the land had, in 1854, been handed over to the several Provinces, and Ordinances passed dealing with those lands. But it was found that the Crown had no intention of assenting to that Act, there was no intention of allowing the lands to pass out of the hands of Her Majesty. "The Waste Lands Act" left in the hands of the Crown the power to fix the price of land, to appoint and remove officers, and to fulfil or perform any contract made on behalf of Her Majesty. The next Act was "The Land Revenue Appropriation Act, 1858," which provides what was to be done with accruing revenue, appoints receivers of that revenue, and enacts that it should be paid over to the respective Provinces, subject to warrant from the Governor. Next came "The Crown Grants Act, 1862," No. 2, which bore much on the present case. It enacted that it should be lawful for the Governor, at any time, to fulfil any contract, promise, or engagement heretofore made with the Natives, with reference to land ceded on the faith of such promise or engagement. "The Crown Lands Act, 1863," gave great powers to Commissioners, but it did not affect the question, as they were Crown servants. By "The Otago Waste Lands Act, 1866," the Superintendent and Local Boards were employed in the administration of "The Land Act;" but the money was still to be paid to the Receiver of Land Revenue, and was the property of Her Majesty, until the Governor had issued certain warrants. The Act had been carefully drawn up, and by it all powers were vested in the Governor. The result was that Her Majesty was, and always had been held the owner of the soil, and he could not see that the Superintendent had a locus standi. The Commissioner of Crown Lands would have, but that the representative of his superior was present. They might, however, act in concert.