6194.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TILLC.O. 885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
SIR,
No. 758.
(NEW ZEALAND.)
TREASURY SOLICITOR to TREASURY.
Solicitor's Department, Treasury.
June 10, 1872.
THEIR Lordships having been pleased by a Minute, dated 29th May 1872, to refer to me a letter from the Colonial Office dated the 27th May 1872, transmitting in reference to my Report of 18th August 1871,* in the matter of John McAleavy, deceased, certain correspondence with the War Office relative to an inquiry which I suggested should be made with the view of ascertaining the facts as to the relationship to the deceased of certain persons who claimed to share in the distribution of bis property on grounds which are set out in the Memorandum of the Colonial Secretary of New Žealand referred to in, and sent with, the Colonial Office letter, I have the honour to
Report
That the War Office appears to have communicated with the Resident Magistrate at Banbridge (a place in the neighbourhood of Ballyvarley where the deceased is said to have been born), and to have received from him a statutory declaration made by Daniel McAleavy, who is number one on the list of claimants set out in the Memo- randum of the New Zealand Government before referred to. At the foot of this declaration is a statement to the Resident Magistrate, that from inquiries he has made be has arrived at the conclusion that the statements in such declaration are true. Assuming this to be the case it would appear that the relatives of the deceased are the declarant Daniel McAleavy, an uncle, and Margaret Small, the widow of a half brother. These persons have no legal claim to the deceased's estate, as it is admitted that he was illegitimate, and their Lordships are asked what course they would adopt if they were petitioned to distribute an estate of this nature under similar circumstances. The Memorandum of the New Zealand Government appears to me to be correct as to the principles on which such a distribution should be made. Daniel McAleavy states in his declaration that the deceased was reared and brought up by him in his house from infancy until he reached the age of 20 years, when he enlisted in the 65th regiment, and that he was clothed and reared by the declarant at very considerable expense, as none of his friends ever did anything for him.
This being the case their Lordships would probably think that under similar circum- stances a person in the position of the declarant would have some claim to their consideration in preference to other natural relatives, and as all the information that may reasonably be expected to be obtained in the case has now been received, their Lordships can, if they see fit, return the papers to the Colonial Office with an intima- tion that their Lordships, if they were advised that the deceased was sufficiently identified with the John McAleavey mentioned in the declaration of Daniel McAleavy, would consider that under similar circumstances they might properly make a grant to a person in the position of the declarant to the exclusion of other natural relatives; but I think that their Lordships may also properly suggest that, with the further evidence now obtained, it still remains a matter for consideration by the Government of New Zealand whether the deceased has been identified with the John McAleavy mentioned in the declaration, the declarant states that he is “ the uncle of the late John McAleavy of the 65th Regiment of Foot who died in New Zealand some years ago." No dates whatever are given, and no letters or documents are produced which might serve to identify the deceased; but on the other hand, the declarant did on 11th December 1867 send through his solicitor a copy of a letter referred to in my Report of August 18, 1871, dated from the Curragh Camp, signed John McAleavy, dated March 3rd, 1858, and containing a request that an answer should be sent to No. 3.638 Regiment, the deceased being No. 2,064 in the 65th Regiment, and having been dis- charged on the 31st December 1853, in New Zealand, and in a joint memorial referred to in the Memorandum of the New Zealand Government as dated 6th January 1871, and presented by the declarant and Michael McAleavy, the declarant stated that he had
• This Report is not printed, as it merely suggested the procuring of evidence.
Q 10278.--663.
25.5 86.
"