CO885-(13-15) — Page 40

2

the Act (see sec. 7 proviso). Relief" is by the statute interpreted to mean every species of relief claimed or prayed for in any such petition of right, whether .

or a payment of money or damages.

It is submitted upon the authority of Tobin v. Reg. that an action such as this would not lie in England, the claim being purely tort.

The question therefore arises, Does the Local Statute extend the rights of the subject so as to give him a remedy in this case, in fact, in all possible cases?

The preamble of the Local Act recites that the ordinary remedy by Petition of Right is of limited operation and insufficient to meet all cases that may arise, and is attended with great expense and delay. And the statute enacts that in all cases of dispute or difference touching any claims

a petition may be presented.

·

The Imperial Statute alters only the form of procedure, and does not alter the law, per Earle, C.J., in Tobin v. Reg. p. 353.

The Local Act does not contain a proviso similar to that in sec. 7 of the Imperial Act.

In construing statutes as against the Crown due regard must be paid to the question of the Royal Prerogative, and unless the statute in express words curtails the prerogative the rights of the Crown are not affected. Statutes are made for the subject and not for the Crown. See Broom, p. 73, 76. Does not the maxim "The King can do no wrong" apply? Upon this point see Broom's Legal Maxims, pp. 47 and 52.

In this case the Crown is made liable for the negligent act of a servant, but it has been held that the maxim "Respondeat superium" does not apply to the Crown.

The plaintiff had his remedy against the servant.

The costs in the action have been taxed and allowed at 2271, 68. 7d.

Counsel will advise-

Will a petition of right lie in such a case as this? (2.) Was not the defendant entitled to a nonsuit?

(3.) Should the defendant apply to the Privy Council for leave to appeal

against the judgment of the Full Court?

C. N. WARTON,

Attorney-General,

30/6/87.

18,286.

SIR,

No. 101.

(CANADA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice, September 8, 1887.

We were honoured with Mr. Bramston's letter of the 29th ultimo, stating that he was directed by you to transmit for our consideration a letter from Mr. Oliver Mowat, the Premier of the Province of Ontario, forwarding a draft Bill for confirming the boundary of that Province as recommended by the Order of Her Majesty in Council of the 11th of August 1884.

That the circumstances connected with the preparation of the draft Bill were briefly stated in a further letter from Mr. Mowat of the same date (of which a copy was enclosed), and that Mr. Bramston was to request that we would take into consideration the Order in Council, copy of which accompanied Mr. Mowat's letter, and advise whether, in our opinion, Her Majesty's Government ought to promote legislation as recommended by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and, if so, whether the draft Bill submitted was in proper form and sufficient for the purpose.

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

Report

That in our opinion it would be desirable for Her Majesty's Government to promote legislation as recommended by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and the draft Bill submitted to us is sufficient for the purpose, but we think, before any Bill is introduced, Her Majesty's Government should communicate their intention to the Dominion Government, with an intimation that any remarks they may desire to submit on the subject will have consideration,

The Right Hon.

Sir Henry Holland, Bart., M.P.,

&o.

&c.

&c.

We have, &c., (Signed) RICHARD E. WEBSTER.

EDWARD CLARKE.

*

& 50069.-27. 25.--9,87.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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