Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Despatch to London
Seymour, Frederick to Carnarvon, Earl 29 April 1867, CO 60:28, no. 7981, 113.
Abstract
Despatch to London.
Minutes (3), Enclosures (untranscribed) (1), Other documents (1).
Seymour forwards a bill titled
An Ordinance to assimilate the Law affecting the Limitation of Certain Causes of Actions and Suitsand encloses a letter from the Attorney General opposing the bill. Holland’s minute describes the Attorney General’s and Holland’s reasons for opposing the bill and advises for section five to be amended before being confirmed.
No. 72
29th April 1867
My Lord,
I have the honor to forward an Authenticated Copy of a Bill
passed by the Legislative Council of this Colony at its recent
Session. It is entitled;An
An Ordinance to assimilate the Law
affecting the Limitation of Certain Causes of Actions and Suits.
An Ordinance to assimilate the Law
affecting the Limitation of Certain Causes of Actions and Suits.
2. The Attorney General as will be seen by the enclosed
letter, is much opposed to the proposed measure, and doubting its
expediency myself, I have reserved the Bill for the signification
of Her Majesty's pleasure.
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Elliot
The Attorney General objects, & very properly as it appears to me, to giving a debtor in British Columbia a privilege which he is especially debarred from by the law of the Country where the debt was incurred, though at the same time he is relying upon that very law as a defence to an action to recover that debt. The B. Columbian time of limitation, after which a debt cannot be recovered, is say 6 years. The Californian is say 2 years, but then the benefit of that limitatn is only given to those who have resided the two years in California. By this Ordce, as it is now framed, the debtor who has incurred the debt in California is to be allowed, fairly enough, to prove as a defence, that the Californian time of limitation—say 2 years—has expired, but then by the latter part of Clause 5 he is to be allowed to do this though he has not resided the 2 years in California. Curiously enough the like clause was allowed in the Vancouver Island Act of 1861.
The Attorney General objects, & very properly as it appears to me, to giving a debtor in British Columbia a privilege which he is especially debarred from by the law of the Country where the debt was incurred, though at the same time he is relying upon that very law as a defence to an action to recover that debt. The B. Columbian time of limitation, after which a debt cannot be recovered, is say 6 years. The Californian is say 2 years, but then the benefit of that limitatn is only given to those who have resided the two years in California. By this Ordce, as it is now framed, the debtor who has incurred the debt in California is to be allowed, fairly enough, to prove as a defence, that the Californian time of limitation—say 2 years—has expired, but then by the latter part of Clause 5 he is to be allowed to do this though he has not resided the 2 years in California. Curiously enough the like clause was allowed in the Vancouver Island Act of 1861.
I would not disallow this Act, as the only obnoxious part is the
last paragraph in sec. 5, but the Govr should be informed that an
amendment is required before the Act can be confirmed. And
he shd be instructed to procure such amendment.
HTH
19/8
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
H.P.P. Crease, Attorney General, to Seymour, 11 April 1867,
reporting on the ordinance as per despatch.
Other documents included in the file
Draft reply, Buckingham to Seymour, No. 52, 5 September 1867 explaining support for the Ordinance to assimilate the Law affecting Limitation of
Certain Causes of Actions and Suits if section five is amended and describing the
limitations of section five of the ordinance.