Judgment. Starke J. Toe plaintiff was born in Australia of British perants. She warried in 1692 Martin Gimsat, who was born in Germany and landed in §3.6&.Wales about the year 1879. Cimmat had applied in or authorities in F.3."ales for a about, yoar 1888 to the pre certificate of naturalization which was prepared but. never issued. see Aliens Aot 39 Vie. No.19 see.5 Simaeat was a watchmaker and jeweller by trade. Apparently he nade a suall competGnce for in 1897 he retired from busdness, and his property was realised and invested in the name 'Uf his wife - t. © Plaintiff - in ths shares of various public companies. In 1914 war broke out and was soon followed by legislation ang regulations "for seouring the public' safety and defence of the i Comucnwealth® o . as . One regulation was thot Sii1ea thé}Wer Precautions (Enemy shareholders) Regulations 1916*,purporting to be passed pursuant to is the War Precautions Act. By these regulations enexy subjects ard " 4 naturalised persons cf eneny origin were 'required tc transfer shares \ held by them in any Company incorporated in the Commonwealth to the Public, Trustee who was empowered to hold them until after the end of the war or to sell thes in manner prescribed. Regulations 2,4,5,5a In tt regulations unless the contrary intention appears Enemy Bubject means (inter alia) a subject of a country with which the United Kingdom is at war re. Natur@.ised person of enesy origin means a rereon who having been a subject of a country with which the United Kingdon is now at war is a naturdliezd British Qubject by virtue of 2 certificate of naturalia- ation issued in any part of the British Dominions to hi.self - - - - or (in case cf 2 uurried woman) te bez husband and includes ef any suck naturdlised person r 2. | 2. [" Ane for the purpose of the regulation 2 woman who is the wife +-——- | | of an enemy subject and Tiage wae a ni born Eritieh subject shall be de ad to ke a pxrag naturalised person of ynemy origin. xr SA + addsu by Stat. rule 1918 No.74 20th iar. $8 | 1918. The decisions of this Gourt in Burkard v. Oakley 25 ¢.L.R . 520 establish, in my opinion, the validity of these 422 and 27 C.L. regulations. The plainttff has not the advantage of professional assistance in frani r slaim. It is not therefore surrrizing the: her action is defective as to parties and her statexent of claim contrary to the rules of the Court. But T am prepared, ad I said at the otal' to make any a&endment as to parties and to the statement of | elsim which sould support any resl claim againet the Commonwealth. ' daacas Gy ov i The matters AWagednde' the statement of vlaim @a which I am prepared a faared by ~ ; to accept, for present purposes, as the statexent of claim may be stated as follows 3- (1) That the provisions of the War Pree esutiona (Enemy Skarsholdérs) regulations 1916 sre not warranted by \ law. Burkard ¥ oakley disposes of this contention. (2) That the plaintiff was not 2 person subject to the regtilations. It is not very anuterial to deteruine whether Simmat was an enemy" sub- ' fect or & naturdlised psreon of enemy origin. The better view I think ig that he © an enemy subject for his Gertificate of Raetur— | alization waa never issued to him see. Aliens Act supra hay 2 \ If Simmatf# wae an enemy subject regulationg 5A prescribes that a woman: wre is th subjeét and who prior to marriage was a natural born British subject shell be deened to be @ naturalised person of enemy origin; if Sinnat was nut an enemy subject ther he was a naturalized person of enemy origin and that term.inoludes the wife of anv such »sorgon. gee. 2. Consequently jn wy opinion the plaintiff was 2 :erson te when the regulations applied. Yee tLherefor2 required undsr the bp Ref (athe Poster Reales Hes Web Shs "ner. 'Bhares to the Public Trustee fic Iwas. referred on be @ plaintiff to etion Grder 1918 r.2 which provides that a woman borna'cf a British subjech who has swurried an alien enemy is not to Sa deemdd an alien enamy. Dut this definition is fer ik the restrictions autheriesed oy & @der and hus no vsaring upon tke provisions cof the Eneway shareholderf fegulations. (3) That the Public Trustee had no authority to sell her shares The statement of claim dove net » wae it very clear whether the piain- . 3 tiff meane to allege that the sale was made by direction of the Attorney ceneralor was nade without such diresticn ond wae compelled the, defendanty to justify under r.11 (2). But I think the proper constriction of the claim, taken as 2 wole is that the salé-was. made by direction of the propsr authority under the reguletions but in abuse of that authority. I deal separately with the suggestion of abuse of authority. If ar regulation is valid, as I nav made by the plaintiff merely show that a sale was xade within the ready held, the allegations power.ggaé I feel no doubt. that the fasts are as I have taken the Pleintiff to allege them, (4) That thd sale was wade in abuse of power. : Slate mae The 6enee in which this phrase is used in the atemeant of clain n sressive, and un- covers both the want of power and a hard,unjust, 0: necessary exercise of that pbwer. The former sense las already seen disoretion disposed of snd the latter attacks tie aeasrimtion of the officer appointed by ths regulations to authorise the sale. But no Court of law can interfere with the exerevise cf that discretion Theodore v Duncan £919 A.C. at 706; Widges Councsil v Sonney 4 C.L.R. at pp. 982-6.) (5), That the plaintiff has suffered loes by reason of the sale of her shares . tement of claim 'of: negligence in an the fart" . .failure py the defendants to ac- . nr count for the monies realised by the sele.apd So far as I can gather @.48 no allegation dn'the thé conduct of the s&le or of from papers submitted to me by the plaintiff such an allegation gould not have been sustained in fact. The defendants demurred to the statement of claim and the | demurrer came before me for argument and determination . 4n application in Chambers to strike out the statement of : claim would havé been more advisfable and I mark my opinion of the procedure followed by the defendanta in this case in the order as to. "costes But. as the matter standé the better course is to dispose of the aenurrer . The statenent. of claim, as I 'have indicated, alleges no cause of action in the plaintiff. ged, he demirrer 10 Farge "allowed. Denurrer allowed. Judguent for defendant. Sack party to oat OG Aes ; . abide Aéengr her own costes. . ~ an oy