CO885-(15-16) — Page 121

23668

No. 89.

(MAURITIUS.)

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

To To Te

يليسا

Reference :-

C.O. 885

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

SIR,

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice, July 9, 1901. WE were honoured with your commands, signified in Mr. H. Bertram Cox's O.A.G., No. letter of the 13th ultimo, stating that he was directed by you to forward to us the 459,300ct., papers noted in the margin on the subject of the right of the Judges of the Supreme 1900, and Court of Mauritius to appoint Interpreters to that Court.

Enclosure. C.O., No. 345, 10

1901.

That Mr. Bertram Cox was to lay before us the following facts :- That in August, 1900, a vacancy occurred in the post of Interpreter of the Supreme Dec., 1900. Court. That that vacancy was filled up by the appointment of Mr. Motee by the Chief O.A.G., No. Judge, who, on a protest being made by Mr. Daniel Dawson, Interpreter of Indian 1016 May, Dialectà attached to the District Court of Grand Port, informed the Officer administering Order in the Government on the 15th October, 1900, that the Judges had exercised their judicial Council, patronage, and that Mr. Dawson was not justified in putting forward any claim to the 23 Oct., post.

1851. Ordinance

That on the 24th October the Officer administering the Government drew the atten- No. 16 of tion of the Chief Judge to the fact that the office of Interpreter figured in the Civil List 1857. Ordinance No. 16 of 1857, in the Procureur-General's Department; and that the late holder of that office had been appointed in 1874 by the Governor on the recommendation of the Procureur-General.

That on 25th October the Chief Judge replied that the Judges had appointed Mr. Motee in pursuance of Article 7 of the Order, in Council of 23rd. October, 1851, which vested in the Judges the appointment of all officers of the Court; that they were of opinion that the Interpreter of the Supreme Court was clearly an officer of the Court; and that it did not occur to them that the omission of the Judges to exercise their prerogative on the occasion of the last appointment and the inclusion of the Interpreter under a wrong head in the Ordinance of 1857 could be construed into an abrogation or modification of an Order in Council,

That the matter having been referred to the Colonial Office on 20th December, 1900, instructions were given to the Officer administering the Government to forward a Report from the Procureur-General on the legal right of the Judges to appoint Interpreters, and a statement showing the manner in which each such appointment had been made since the year 1851.

That on the 6th May, 1901, the Officer administering the Government forwarded the Report and Statement in accordance with the above instructions. That the latter document made it plain that those appointments had hitherto been made by the Governor.

That Mr. Bertram Cox was to ask us to be good enough to report :—

1. Whether the Interpreter to the Supreme Court was

(a.) An officer of the Court whose office had in fact been so fixed and determined by

the Judges under Article 7 of the Order in Council so as to vest the appointment in them;

or,

(b.) An officer in the Department of the Procureur-General, under the Ordinance. No. 16 of 1857, to be appointed by the Governor ?

2. Whether the Procureur-General was correct in his opinion that Article 7 of the Order in Council, so far as the creation of offices was concerned, was spent, and that new offices did not come within its scope ?

3. Generally.

We have taken the papers into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to

Report-

1. (a.) That in our opinion an Interpreter is not an officer of the Supreme Court within Article VII. of the Order in Council of 1851.

His office has never, in fact, been fixed and determined under Article VII. of the Order in Council, 1851, and therefore the appointment to such office is not vested in the Judges.

95 JU-25-7,1901 Wt 352 D & S 5

2

(6.) We think such Interpreter is an officer in the Department of the Procureur- General, and should be appointed by the Governor. '

2. We agree with the view of the Procureur-General that Article VII. of the Order in Council as to the creation of offices is spent.

3. Nothing further occurs to us.

The Right Hon. J. Chamberlain, M.P.,

&c.,

&c.,

&c.

!

We have, &c.,

R. B., FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON,