R
4029.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
6
Reference :→
C.O. 885
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR HIS MAJESTYS STATIONERY OFFICE,
Br DARLING & SON, LTD., 34-40, BACON STREET, E.
1903.
No. 176.
(MAURITIUS.)
LAW OFFICERS TO COLONIAL OFFICE.
[Government of Mauritius v. Laborde and others and Pezzani and others: whether application should be made to the Judicial Committee for special leave to appeal.]
SIR,
Royal Courts of Justice,
29th January, 1903.
WE were honoured with your commands signified to us by Mr. Bertram Cox in his letter of the 20th November last, stating that he had been directed by you to transmit to us a despatch from the Governor of Mauritius dated the 17th of October last, together with its enclosures, and to request our Report on the question whether it was desirable that, as suggested by the Governor, application should be made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for special leave to appeal in the case of the Government of Mauritius against Laborde and others and against Pezzani and others.
That he was to transmit to us a report of the arguments and the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case. That the Supreme Court had held that in Mauritius the Crown had not by its prerogative a right to priority of payment over creditors of equal degree and had declined to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council against that decision on the ground that the amount involved was less than Rs. 10,000.
That the despatch of the Governor and the Minute of the Procureur General showed that this decision was a matter of considerable importance to the Government of Mauritius, and that they were anxious that, if possible, steps should be taken to bring the matter by way of appeal before the Judicial Committee.
That he was accordingly to request us to take these papers into our consideration and to advise you—
(1) Whether there is any sufficient ground for an application to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for special leave to appeal ?
(2) Whether there is reasonable ground for supposing that such application will be
granted?
(3) Whether there is reasonable ground for supposing that the appeal, if leave be granted, will be successful ?
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to
Report-
That we do not think that any application for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ought to be made in this case, as, in our opinion, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Mauritius is right and would be upheld.
It is conceded that the priority of the Crown claimed in the case could not be insisted upon if the matter is to be governed, by the law of Mauritius (see page 128 by Procureur General), and, in our opinion, it follows, from the judgment of the Privy Council in the Exchange Bank of Canada v. R. (11 A.C. 157), that the matter is to be determined by the law of Mauritius. That decision was not questioned in the Maritime Bank case, 1892, A.C. 437, and appears to us to be clearly right. Reference may also be made to the case of Donegani v. Donegani, 3 Knapp, P.C. 63, which rests on the same principle.
We have, &c.,
&c.
The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c.,
&c.,
25 Wt 2757 2,03 D & S 3
13372
R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON,
15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO