CO885-(15-16) — Page 306

4609

「།།།「།

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

19

SIR,

No. 213.

(MAURITIUS.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Rights of the Crown in Mauritius.]

Royal Courts of Justice,

February 9, 1904. We were honoured with Mr. Chamberlain's commands signified to us by Mr. Bertram Cox in his letter of the 20th May last, stating that with reference to our report of the 29th January, 1903,* relating to the question of the rights of the Crown in Mauritius, he was directed to transmit to us a confidential despatch dated the 9th of April last from the Governor of Mauritius, to whom the substance of our report was communicated.

That he was also to transmit to us a memorandum by the Procureur-General upon the questions at issue which formed an enclosure of the Governor's despatch.

That in view of the importance attached to this matter by the Governor and the Procureur-General, Mr. Chamberlain would be glad to be favoured with our further report upon it.

That the Procureur-General had suggested that if the points raised by him were considered sufficient to justify the conclusion that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would grant leave to appeal, an application should be made, and that, if granted, he might be afforded the opportunity of personally discussing the matter with the Law Officers in the course of a few months, when he hoped to be in England.

That he was to request us to take these matters into our consideration and to report:-

1. Whether we see any reason to differ from the opinion expressed in our report of the 29th January?

2. Whether there is sufficient ground for supposing that the Judicial Committee

of the Privy Council would grant leave to appeal?

3. Whether any such application should be made?

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to Mr. Chamberlain's commands, have the honour to

Report-

That we see no reason to differ from the opinion expressed in our report of the 29th January, 1903. We do not think it would be possible, in the face of the specific admission made by the Procureur-General, to which we have referred in our report that "undoubtedly the law of Mauritius is the same as the law of Canada," to now raise an opposite contention, and we do not agree with the opinion of the Procureur-General that the case of the Exchange Bank of Canada v. The Queen was wrongly decided.

2. No. We do not think that, having regard to the case above mentioned, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would allow an appeal.

3. In our opinion it should not.

The Right Honourable

Alfred Lyttelton, M.P.. &c., &c., &c.

We have, &c.,

R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.

25 Wt 664 204 D&8 6

17254

• No. 176.

Reference :-

C.O. 885

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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