1948.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TPERE C.O.8
885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE BY DARLING & SON, LTD., 1-3. GREAT ST. THOMAS APOSTLE. E.C. 1899.
SIR,
No. 206.
(STRAITS SETTLEMENTS,—ĜENERAL.)
LAW OFFICERS TO COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice,
23rd January, 1899.
WE were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. C. P. Lucas's letter of the 21st December last, stating that he was directed by you to forward to us a letter received from the Crown Agents for the Colonies, enclosing a communication from their solicitors—Messrs. Sutton, Ommanney, and Rendall—and an opinion by Mr. Arthur Llewellyn Davies on the subject of the action of the Crown Agents v. Hoyle.
That such action was instituted by the Crown Agents, on the advice of Mr. Llewellyn Davies, on behalf of the Government of the Straits Settlements, to recover passage money and an advance for training expenses from Mr. Henry Hoyle, an assistant master in the Government Schools of the Colony, who was appointed to that position under an agreement dated 2nd April, 1897.
That a copy of the agreement was enclosed, and that it would be seen that it was entered into between Major Cameron, one of the Crown Agents for the Colonies, acting for and on behalf of the Government of the Straits Settlements, and Mr. Hoyle. That the clauses under which the action had been brought were Nos. 6 and 12, by the former of which, in the events therein specified, Mr. Hoyle was rendered liable to refund the cost of his passage to the Colony, while by the latter he agreed to repay to the Government the amount claimed by the Imperial Government in respect of the cost of his training.
That a copy of the pleadings in the action were enclosed for our information. That into the merits of the case it was not necessary to enter, but that subsequently to the commencement of the action, which was brought in the name of the Crown Agents, a doubt was felt by Mr. Llewellyn Davies as to the capacity of the Crown Agents to sue on behalf of the Colonial Government, and that it was understood that that point had been, or was likely to be, raised either on the pleadings or at the trial of the action.
That the question was submitted to us, in a general form, by Mr. Bertram Cox's letter of 27th July last, in which an incidental reference was made to the case of the Crown Agents r. Hoyle, and that we then advised✶ that the Crown Agents could not suè in that style, as they were not a corporation, and that it would be very convenient that they should be incorporated by statute and empowered to sue, and be sued, on behalf of the Colonies, any personal liability being excluded.
That with a view to giving effect to the latter part of our Report a draft Bill was being prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel, but as some time would elapse before the necessary legislation took place, you would be glad to be favoured with our views as to what ought to be the form of an action on a contract made with the Crown Agents on behalf of a Colonial Government. That it would be observed that Mr. Davies considered that it would be useless to join, or to substitute, the individual Crown Agents as plaintiffs in this action, or to join Major Cameron alone as being the person who entered into and signed the agreement. He further suggested that as the principal in the case was the Government of the Straits Settlements, or in other words the Crown, and that as, in his view, the Attorney-General of the Straits Settlements had no locus stawti in the High Court, the proper procedure for the enforcement of the contract would be an Information by the Crown in the name of Her Majesty's Attorney-General. That it appeared from his opinion that the point as to the capacity of the Crown Agents to sue was not raised in the defence, but that he stated that it would be open to the defendant's counsel, or the judge, to raise it at the trial; and he therefore proposed that the assent of the Attorney-General should be obtained to the amendment of the pleadings, either now or, should circumstances render it necessary, at the trial, by adding his name as Informant and changing the action into an Information by the Crown.
That Mr. Lucas was to request us to take the papers into our consideration and favour you with our opinion upon the following 'points :—
—
1. What was the proper form of procedure in an action brought to enforce the provisions of a contract made with the Crown Agents, or one of them, on behalf of a Colonial Government.
* No. 182.
1614-25-199 W 23147 DAS