R
40960
No. 49.
(WESTERN Pacific.)
·
}
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Mr. W. II. Hazelton's claim for compensation for alleged injuries received by him from Mr. Arthur Oliphant, Acting Resident Commissioner for the Solomon Islands Protectorate.]
MY LORD,
Royal Courts of Justice,
November 6, 1906.
WE were honoured by your Lordship's commands, signified to us by Mr. Lucas in his letter of the 28th September last stating that he was directed by your Lord- ship to transmit to us the correspondence with the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific on the subject of a claim made on behalf of Mr. W. II. Hazelton for compensation for alleged injuries received by him from Mr. Arthur Oliphant while the latter was acting as Resident Commissioner for the British Solomon Islands Protectorate.
That the events from which this claim arose were fully stated in two previous despatches from the High Commissioner, dated the 11th September and 21st Novem- ber, 1905, which were enclosed. That the parts of those despatches relevant to the matter under consideration were the following:-
Despatch of 11th September, 1905: paragraphs 6-40, 48-51, enclosures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13.
Despatch of 21st November, 1905: paragraphs 4, 5, and 8, enclosures 2 and 3. That Mr. Oliphant has been allowed to tender his resignation of his appoint- ment as Deputy Commissioner for the Western Pacific in the British Solomon Islands Protectorate, and that the Secretary of State has accepted it.
That your Lordship was advised that no action în tort lay against the Crown and that neither the High Commissioner nor Mr. Oliphant could be proceeded against for tort in the capacity of agent for or as representing the Crown; and. consequently, that Mr. Hazelton's legal remedy, if any, would appear to be against Mr. Oliphant in his individual and not in his official capacity (cf. Raleigh v. Goschen, L.R. (1898), 1 Ch. 73).
That he was to request that we would take the matter into our consideration and report:-
(a) Whether Mr. Hazelton has any legal claim against His Majesty's Govern- ment or the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific for compensation on account of the manner in which he was treated by Mr. Oliphant?
(b) If not, whether, in our opinion, he should be paid any compensation as an act of grace?
(c) If the answer to the last question was in the affirmative, what sum should
be offered to him?
We have taken the matter into our consideration and, in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to
Report-
That, in our opinion, no action will lie at the suit of Mr. Hazelton against His Majesty's Government or the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific for damages in respect of his treatment by Mr. Oliphant.
That although it might be possible to find some legal justification for part of Mr. Oliphant's conduct, we think that generally it was so unreasonable and illegal that compensation should be paid to Mr. Hazelton as a matter of grace.
We have no materials on which it is possible to assess the damage suffered by Mr. Hazelton, but we think that his conduct on 14th June, when Mr. Oliphant tried to board the schooner “Lindsay,” was not reasonable, and that such conduct should be taken into account as tending to diminish the amount which might otherwise be offered by way of compensation as a matter of grace.
We have, &c.,
JOHN L. WALTON.
W. S. ROBSON,
The Right Honourable
The Earl of Elgin, K.G.,
&c.,
&c.,
&c.
25
Wt 1649 1,07 D & S
G 26376
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
C.O.885
Reference :-
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
}