CO885-(11-13) — Page 268

2020.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

TTLELICO.

سالسا

MY LORD,

No. 50.

(NEW ZEALAND.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Lincoln's Inn, 22nd February 1875. We are honoured with your Lordship's commands, ignified in Mr. Pauncefote's letter of the 18th January ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to request our opinion on the following point, as to the effect of a pardon with a clause of restitution granted by the Governor of New Zealand.

2. At a sitting of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, held at Dunedin on the 5th of September 1870, one George Rennie was convicted of felony on two indictments, and sentenced to a term of three years penal servitude on each. Subsequently, the responsible ministers advised the Governor to grant a pardon to Rennie, with a clause of restitution under the powers conferred on him in that behalf by the sixth clause of Her Majesty's commission constituting him Governor of New Zealand. this pardon and of the Governor's commission were enclosed.

A copy of

3. That it appears that Rennie, before his conviction, was interested in certain contracts, the property in which is assumed to have vested in the Crown upon conviction, and he w desires to sue on those contracts, and the question is whether, having regard to the language of the sixth clause of the Governor's commission, property in and right to sue on contracts entered into by the pardoned felon before his conviction, and which may be assumed to have vested in Her Majesty by such convic- tion, became revested in the pardoned felon in pursuance of the said pardon.

4. That Mr. Pauncefote was to annex an opinion given upon this case by the Attorney-General of the Colony, arguing from the language of the sixth clause that the Governor's authority is confined to remitting fines, penalties, and forfeitures, due and payable to the Crown, and does not extend to revesting in the pardoned felon property in a contract.

5. That Mr. Pauncefote was to request that we would take these papers into our consideration, and report whether we agree with the view that the power to revest the property in and right to sue on the aforesaid contracts was not delegated to the Governor, and if so, whether we consider that it would be necessary for this purpose to grant a pardon to George Rennie under the Great Seal, or whether a pardon under the Sign Manual would suffice.

L.O. to C.O.,

6. That Mr. Pauncefote was to add that the case of George Rennie formed the subject of correspondence (as noted in the margin) last year between the Colonial Offico C.O. to L.O., and the then Law Officers, but Mr. Pauncefote was to observe that in your Lordship's 16 Aug.1873. opinion it may be unnecessary that we should consider that correspondence, as, on the 28 Aug 1873. one hand, the New Zealand Government had not then explained exactly what was the C.O. to L.O., point on which they sought advice, whilst the Law Officers in their reports to a certain 13 Sep. 1873. extent treated the case as affected by the Local Convicts Forfeiture Act of 1872, Attorney. which is not retrospective, and which was not passed at the time of Rennie's CO., 19 Sep. conviction.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have taken these papers into consideration, and have the honour to

Report

That we do not agree with the view that the power to revest the property in and right to sue on the contracts in question was not delegated to the Governor of New Zealand. As we hold that such power was delegated to him, we are of opinion that it is not necessary to grant a pardon to George Rennie, either under the Great Seal or otherwise.

We have, &c.,

RICHARD BAGGALLAY. JOHN HOLKER.

The Right. Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon,

&c.

&c.

&c.

(Signed)

General to

1873.

▲ 13916.-19. 95.-19/84.

Reference :-

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

885

12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON