26920
9
between the Colonial Office and the Natal Government was shown in the passages noted in the Blue Books [Cd. 3998], [Cd. 4194], and [Cd. 4328], ending with pages 13 and 14 of [Cd. 4328].
We have taken all the papers into our consideration and, in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to
Report-
That in our opinion no claim on His Majesty's Government, based on legal grounds, for payment of Dinuzulu's salary since 30th November, 1907, would be successful. The salary is, by the terms of Dinuzulu's appointment, dependent upon his behaviour, and as he has now been found guilty of conduct which is clearly a breach of the duties imposed by his appointment we think that he is not entitled to claim the salary attached thereto.
It may be contended that Dinuzulu continued to hold his appointment until the date when the Secretary of State approved of his dismissal, and that his salary accrued accordingly; but even on the footing of its having accrued, and been paid, His Majesty's Government would now be entitled, by reason of his conduct, to sue him for return of any salary paid since his misconduct began. The result is that any claim on his part for such salary would fail.
The Right Honourable
The Earl of Crewe, K.G..
&c.,
&c.,
&c.
We have, &c..
W. S. ROBSON.
S. T. EVANS.
SIR,
No. 120.
(New Zealand.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
[Webster Land Claim.]
WE were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. L. Mallet's letter of
Royal Courts of Justice, 3rd August, 1909. the 23rd ultimo transmitting for our consideration the accompanying papers relative to the claim of the representatives of William Webster, a United States citizen, for reparation for the seizure and sale of large tracts of land in New Zealand to which he had acquired the title and of which he was in possession before the acquisition of that Colony by the British Government in 1840, and requesting us to favour you with our opinion as to whether or not the said claim was barred by the Convention of 1853 and as to the propriety of submitting that question to arbitration.
We have taken the papers into our consideration and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to
Report
That, in our opinion, the Webster claim is barred by the Convention of 1853, and that it would be a bad precedent to agree to submit such a claim to arbitration.
We have, &c.,
W. S. ROBSON,
S. T. EVANS.
Sir Edward Grey, Bart.,
&c.,
&c.,
&c.
(14091-2.) Wt. 96-332, 25. 9.09, D & 8.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
C.O.885
Reference :-
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO