CO885-(11-13) — Page 420

11,109.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

CO.

Reference :-

885

12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

the Colonial Law Validity Act (28 & 29 Viet. c. 63.), and if so, whether the above-mentioned local laws, or any of them, were to any extent void on the ground of repugnancy to the aforesaid Act of 1856; and that we would favour the Secretary of State with any further observations on the subject generally that it might appear to us desirable to offer.

8. That in the event of further legislation being required in order to relieve the holders of the notes of the Colonial Bank from the necessity of receiving payments in dollars, Mr. Bramston was to invite us to state whether in our opinion:

(a.) The object in view might be obtained by an Order in Council, followed by a Royal Proclamation declaring the dollar to be no longer a legal tender in the Colonies concerned.

(b.) Whether it would be necessary that such Order in Council and Proclamation should also declare that no persons should be obliged to receive payment in dollars, or words to that effect.

9. That Mr. Bramaton was further, to state that in the West Indian Colonies there was at present no limit to the amount for which British token-silver was a legal tender, and the Secretary of State was about to bring that subject before the Governments of the several Colonies with the view of creating a 408. limit.

10. That Mr. Bramston was, therefore, to request us to advise you whether in our opinion:-

In the event of a limit of 408. being established in any Colony by Order in Council and Royal Proclamation, or by local ordinance, the Colonial Bank would thereafter be precluded from tendering a greater amount of British token-silver in payment of their notes than the prescribed limit.

In compliance with the requests contained in Mr. Bramston's letter we have the honour to

That-

Report

1. The Colonial Bank cannot redeem its notes in Mexican or Spanish dollars after they have been demonetised.

2. That the limit of 408. would make all beyond that amount no legal tender, and consequently they would not be redeemable in British token-silver beyond the amount of 408.

The Right Honourable,

We have, &c.,

(Signed)

Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Bart.,

&c.

&o.

&c.

JOHN HOLKER. HARDINGE S. GIFFARD.

No. 182.

(FIJI.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Temple, 28th August 1878.

SIR,

We were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. Herbert's letter of the 15th of August instant, stating that he was directed by you to transmit to us a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Fiji on appeal from the High Com- missioner's Court for the Western Pacific, in the case of the Queen v. Hunt, together printed with the statement by the Court required by section 54 of the Western Pacific Order in Council of 1877.

Mr. Herbert was also to transmit to us a copy of that Order in Council, and to state that it was considered unnecessary to trouble us with the evidence at the trial.

2. That the prisoner Hunt was tried in February last in Samoa by the Chief Justice of Fiji, acting as Judicial Commissioner in the High Commissioner's Court, and sentenced to one year's imprisonment on the charge of conspiracy to murder, which sentence was subsequently confirmed on his appeal to the Supreme Court.

3. That the murder took place in November 1877, before the Order in Council was proclaimed as required by Article 3, but after the creation of the office of High Com- missioner under Article 7; and the question arises whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the case, and on that head Mr. Herbert was to refer us to the 6th section of the Pacific Islanders Protection Act, 1875, and especially to the words "all crimes and offences," for it was suggested that, the office of the High Commissioner being in existence at the date of the murder, the jurisdiction of the Court might possibly he upheld under those words, supposing it to fail on other grounds.

4. That a second question, as to the charge of conspiracy to murder not being cognisable by the Court, appeared to be sufficiently dealt with by the learned Chief Justice in his judgment.

5. That upon that statement of facts, Mr. Herbert was to request that we would favour you with our opinion whether the judgment of the Chief Justice of Fiji upon the first two grounds of appeal was good in law; and as the continued imprisonment of the man would be undesirable if the validity of his sentence was on any ground questionable, and he would have served his whole sentence by February next, Mr. Herbert was further pleased to request that you might be favoured with a reply at an early date.

In obedience to your commands we have the honour to

Report

That we are unable to concur in the reasoning of the Chief Justice. The Order in Council does not profess to give retrospective jurisdiction, and it is only under the Order in Council that the criminal jurisdiction of this country is given. In a Crown Colony the law remains as it was until altered, and Her Majesty has never signified any alteration of it till the Order in Council, which provides a particular date for its

Wo have, &c.,

commencement.

The Right Hon.

Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Bart.,

&c.

&c.

&c.

(Signed)

JOHN HOLKER. HARDINGE 'S. GIFFARD.

▲ 12916.-177. 21-12/84.

Page 420}