PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
PLC.O.
.885
arise, if the holder of a later concession had claims over the area, or part of it, thus to be made freehold.
That Mr. Just was to request that we would take the papers into our considera- tion, and favour your Lordship with a report whether in our opinion:-
1. The holders of later concessions had any rights prior to the issue of the Swaziland Administration Proclamation;
2. If such rights existed, whether they were takon away by that Proclamation? 3. If they existed, and were not taken away, what would be the position of holders of later concessions over areas within which was comprised land affected by Section 20 of the Proclamation?
We have taken the papers into our consideration and, in obedience to your Lord- ship's commands, have the honour to
Report-
1 That the holders of later concessions had, prior to the Swaziland Adminis- trative Proclamation, 1904, the right to exercise all powers conferred on them by their concessions-subject to all conflicting rights conferred by previous conces- sions.
2. That such rights were not taken away by that Proclamation.
3. With regard to the position of holders of later concessions over areas com- prising land affected by Section 20 of the Proclamation, we think that in cases where the later concession is for a period lasting beyond that of the prior concession, it holds good against the freehold conferred under Section 20 upon such prior con- cessionaire, as though it were a lease granted by him as freeholder.
The Right Honourable
The Earl of Elgin, K.G.,
&c.,
&c.
&c.,
We have, &c.,
JOHN L. WALTON,
W. S. ROBSON.
27513
No. 82.
(NEWFOUNDLAND.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
[O'Reilly v. Crane and Dubois: as to application to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for leave to appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland.]
Royal Courts of Justice,
MY LORD,
August 2, 1907. WE were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified to us in Mr. Bertram Cox's letter of the 26th June last, stating that he was directed to request that we would be so good as to favour your Lordship with our opinion as to whether application should be made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for leave to appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court of Newfound- land in the matter of an appeal from the decision of Mr. Levi March in the case of O'Reilly versus Crane and Dubois.
That Mr. Bertram Cox was to enclose copies of the judgments delivered by the Magistrate and on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Colony, of the petition for leave to appeal to the Privy Council which had been addressed to the Court, and of a memorandum by Counsel for the appellant from which the facts of the case would appear. That he was also to enclose copies of memoranda drawn up in the Colonial Office which formed the grounds on which the memorandum of the Counsel engaged rests. That copies of the documents referred to in these memo- randa were enclosed.
That it would be observed from the correspondence with the Governor of the Colony that your Lordship was advised that under the Charter of Justice there was doubt whether the Supreme Court had any power to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council, since the charge brought against Crane and Dubois appeared to be essentially a criminal one, and no power was given to the Court in the Charter to grant leave to appeal in such cases. That your Lordship was also advised that the grounds for believing that such an appeal could be allowed, which were advanced in the opinion of the Attorney-General of Newfoundland, were doubtful.
That your Lordship would accordingly be glad to learn:-(1) Whether, in our opinion, a decision in favour of the fishermen might reasonably be expected on appeal to the Judicial Committee if leave were granted?
(2) Whether it was probable that the Judicial Committee would be prepared to grant special leave to appeal in view of the importance of the issues involved?
(3) Whether, in the event of the Supreme Court granting leave to appeal, the appeal could be prosecuted in view of leave granted by the Supreme Court in the Colony, or whether it would still be necessary to apply for special leave!
That Mr. Bertram Cox was to add that your Lordship was not without hope that it might be possible so to arrange matters with the Premier of Newfoundland as to render the prosecution of an appeal unnecessary, but that you were anxious to obtain our advice as soon as possible as to whether an appeal would be likely to succeed.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to
Report-
(1) That, in our opinion, a decision in favour of the fishermen could not reason- ably be expected on appeal to the Judicial Committee, if leave were granted.
(2) That it is probable that the Judicial Committee would be prepared to grant special leave to appeal in view of the importance of the issues involved.
(3) That in the event of the Supreme Court granting leave to appeal it still be necessary to apply for special leave.
We have, &c.,
would
JOHN L. WALTON. W. S. ROBSON.
The Right Honourable
The Earl of Elgin, K.G.,
&c., &c.,
23 W 97 1/08 D&S 5 30595
&c.
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
4