25560
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 885
15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
(c) By being requisitioned for military purposes from British subjects irregn- larly, i.e., without receipts being given or payment made.
And generally,
The Law Officers will see that despatch is requested.
Opinion.
We do not think that it can be laid down as a general proposition that a valid title would pass to the purchaser in any of the cases specified in the question.
The answer, however, may be affected by the Cape law, or by the particular facts of each sale, and we strongly recommend that no determination be arrived at in this, or in any particular case, except on the advice of the Legal Advisers of the Cape Government, and on a full statement of the facts.
Law Officers' Department,
May 8, 1903.
CAPE COLONY.
SALE OF UNCLAIMED HORSES. Opinion.
R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.
We cannot advise an appeal in this case. The facts proved do not, in our opinion, establish that on the evidence the property of the original owner passed to the Government.
July 6, 1903.
R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.
No. 194.
(TRANSVAAL.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
[Claim of the late Mr. R. E. Brown against the Government of the South African
SIR,
Republic.]
Royal Courts of Justice,
July 10, 1903. We were honoured with your commands, signified to us by Mr. Bertram Cox, in his letter of the 5th June last, stating that he was directed by you to submit to us a letter of the 23rd of May last, received from the Foreign Office, enclosing a note from the United States Ambassador respecting the claim of the late Mr. R. E. Brown against the Government of the South African Republic.
That the late Mr. Brown, who was a mining engineer in South Africa, on a Proclamation being made by the State President on the 19th of June, 1895, under the Transvaal Law, declaring that a certain district was to be a public digging, applied at the office of the Clerk of Doornkop for a licence for one thousand two hundred claims on the proclaimed portion. That, in the meantime, the Executive Council of the South African Republic had passed a resolution that the Proclamation of the 19th of June should be withdrawn, and on the 20th of July there was pub- lished in the Gazette a Proclamation suspending it. That on the 26th of July, 1895, the Second Volksraad passed a resolution approving the action of the Govern- ment, and suspending the Proclamation of the 19th of June.
That Mr. Brown, under these circumstances, brought an action known as Brown versus Leyds, and the Court declared that the Proclamation of the State President could have no binding effect, and that when the suspending Proclamation appeared in the Gazette of the 20th of July, the land was already a public digging. That the Court declared that a Volksraad resolution had not the force of law when it was in conflict with the Grondwet, and that therefore a mere resolution of the Volksraad could not repeal or alter a law properly passed. That in this connection he was to refer us to our predecessors' report of the 2nd April, 1897.* That this decision of the Court led to the conflict between the judges and President Kruger, which terminated in the dismissal of Chief Justice Kotzé. That in the action above referred to the Court declared that the plaintiff was entitled to be placed as nearly as possible in the same position as he would have been on the morning of the 19th of July, 1895, when Brown was entitled to peg out his claims, and that if that was impossible the Court would have to determine the amount of damages. That in pursuance of the judgment the Mining Commissioner issued a licence to prospect for one month, which was endorsed to the effect that the claims could not be renewed, whereupon the plaintiff applied to the Court to assess damages on the ground that the licences issued were not in compliance with the order of the Court. That the Court refused the application to assess damages, but gave leave to the plaintiff to issue a new summons against the Government.
That this the plaintiff had always declined to do, alleging that it was impossible
to get justice from the Transvaal Courts.
That Mr. Brown applied to Her late Majesty's Government to intervene, and
a print of the memorial presented by him on that occasion was enclosed.
That he was informed, in a letter dated the 15th December, 1898, that he, being an American citizen, should represent his case to the Government of the United States. That this he had accordingly done.
That in December last a letter was addressed to you by a Mr. Galt, a Canadian solicitor, on behalf of Mr. Brown. That Mr. Galt had an interview with a member of your Department, and that it appeared from the facts stated by him that Mr. Galt represented a syndicate which had lent Brown a sum of something like three thousand pounds. Brown's rights being assigned to Galt as trustee for the syndicate which was to take up the case and to take a half share of anything Brown might make. That Mr. Brown, however, died on or about the 7th of October, 1902, leaving as appeared from a further letter from Mr. Galt, dated the 3rd November, 1902,
No. 135 in Vol. V.
1.
28 WE 2018 5/05 D & S 6
21445