Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Despatch to London
Seymour, Frederick to Leveson-Gower, Granville George 14 April 1869, CO 60:35, no. 6115, 520.
Abstract
Seymour, Frederick to Leveson-Gower, Granville George 14 April 1869, CO 60:35, no. 6115, 520.
Despatch to London.
Minutes (3), Enclosures (untranscribed) (2), Other documents (1), Marginalia (1).
No. 71
14th April 1869
My Lord,
I have the honor to forward an Authenticated and two plain
Copies of an Ordinance of the late Session of the Legislatureof
of
this Colony entitled;
No. 25. An Ordinance to amend "The County Courts Ordinance 1867."
of
this Colony entitled;
No. 25. An Ordinance to amend "The County Courts Ordinance 1867."
2. I think this a useful measure. The decision conveyed in the
Secretary of State's despatch No. 29 of 3rd June 1869,
and the mode in which it has been acted on by Chief Justice
Needham left it open to Mr Cameron, late Chief Justice,to
to
claim the Fees of the County Courts ever since 1860.
This ordinance settles that question.
Query 1867.
to
claim the Fees of the County Courts ever since 1860.
This ordinance settles that question.
3. It was proposed in the Legislative Council that the Chief
Justices should be compelled to act as County Court Judges. I
sent the Bill back for Amendment as my great respect for the
opinion of those who maintain thatthe
the Judges ought to be
perfectly independent, precluded my conferring on them by Law
duties not entailed on them by their Instruments of Appointment.
My recommendation was adopted.
the Judges ought to be
perfectly independent, precluded my conferring on them by Law
duties not entailed on them by their Instruments of Appointment.
My recommendation was adopted.
4. The Report of the Attorney General is enclosed.
Minutes by CO staff
The first section gives to the C. Court the power given by the
Imperial Act to the English County Courts.
The 2d section bars all claims of officers of the Court to fees
"heretofore" received in respect of proceedings in the Summary or
Inferior Court.
You will see that in 4401 we came to the conclusion that Mr
Needham was legally though not equitably entitled to a part
of these fees but that if he persisted in the claim, it must be
satisfied & it was suggested that an Act should be passed
cancelling "prospectively" the right of the CJ to receive fees of Court.
But as I read this 2d section, legislation has been
retrospective not merely prospective with respect to fees of the
Summary Court, and Mr Needham could be called upon to refund
what we decided him to have received legally though not equitably.
The reason for retrospective legislation is assigned by the Governor.
It is not stated whether Mr Needham has been called
upon to refund, or whether he has refunded, and before the
Ordinance is sanctioned I should call for a report upon the
state of things & request to be informed whether it is intended
to call
upon Mr Needham to refund, & whether the attention
of that Judge has, as was desired by the Duke of Buckingham, been
called to the fact that his predecessor from the time of the
passing of the rules of 1860, ceased to charge these fees.
upon Mr Needham to refund, & whether the attention
of that Judge has, as was desired by the Duke of Buckingham, been
called to the fact that his predecessor from the time of the
passing of the rules of 1860, ceased to charge these fees.
HTH
31.5.69
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Three printed copies of ordinance not on microfilm.
H.P.P. Crease, Attorney General, to Seymour, 10 April 1869,
reporting on the ordinance as per despatch.
Other documents included in the file
Draft reply, Granville to Officer Administering
the Government, No. 60, 19 June 1869.