Opinion (on the above) of Stewart, Holmes, and Denniston.

Dear Sirs,—We have given careful consideration to the question submitted to us in yours of the 11th inst., on the subject of the Oamaru High School with the following results:—

1.	We agree with the opinion of Messrs Stout and Hislop that the Educational Board has no power to disrate the High page 8 School; that is, to alter its status, its name, or its duties.
2.	We do not think the Board is entitled to effect this object indirectly, by treating the High School practically as a school of a lower grade. We think the object of the Legislature must be assumed to have been to preserve to the inhabitants of any district possessing High Schools, at the time of passing the Education Act of 1877, a school competent by number and efficiency of its teaching staff and otherwise to afford the course of instruction mentioned in section 56 of the Act, in addition to the course of instruction in ordinary public schools. The powers granted to the Board by the Education Act in the way of administering the funds at its disposal, are undoubtedly very full and ample; and the Courts will of course not interfere with its discretion except in extreme cases. We think, however, that such a case arises when the Board is not merely unwisely, though honestly, exercising its discretion; but when it is exercising such discretion on a wrong principle and acting with obvious injustice. (See Hayman and Governor's Rugby School, 43 L. J. Ch. 835, L. R. 18 Eg. 28.) In this particular case the Board is using its assumed discretionary powers, under the Act, for the declared purpose of doing indirectly what it has no power to do directly, and depriving the inhabitants of Oamaru of the rights which are given them by the Act.
3.	Assuming the authority of the Supreme Court to interfere to prevent the improper exercise by the Board of its powers, we think the proper course is to institute a suit by the Attorney-General on the relation of one or more of the inhabitants of the district of Oamaru against the Board, to obtain an injunction restraining them from dealing with the Oamaru District High School in the manner threatened, and partially carried out by them, or from treating it on a different basis than that of other District High Schools. The right of the Attorney-General to exhibit informations on behalf of parties injured by the action of public bodies has been frequently exerised. (See "Daniels' Chancery Practice." vol. i. p. 8.) As to the applicability of the process to such a body as the Education Board, see Reed on Injunctions, p 572; Kewin and Lewis 4 M. & P. 254 Kinloch, Secy. of State for India 49 L I. ch. 571 L.R. 15 ch. Dei. 1; Atty-Genl. and English L. I. 44 ch. 229. As to the form of proceeding, see rules 494 to 497 of the Supreme Court Code' 1882. The fiat of the Attorney-General would be granted as of course on the submission of a proper name or names.

We do not think it would be necessary to delay proceedings until moneys payable but for the action of the Board, would have become due; but perhaps it might be as well to delay the actual formal commencement of any proceedings until the beginning of the year, when the proposed "disrating" takes effect. These observations answer your queries numbered 4 and 5. As there are no cases directly bearing on the point, the proposed proceedings must be somewhat tentative.

Should, however, the persons mainly interested consider the question of sufficient importance to make it advisable to obtain a judicial decision on the subject, we think the course we have indicated the one most likely to effect such an object.