CO129-214 - Public Offices & Others - 1883 — Page 667

600

Mr. Meade

I think from Fr. Gage Browne's Certificate in 9499, it is quite certain that were M. Cleaver an applicant for a pension as an ordinary civil servant we should refuse it, give him leave to rejoin his corps.

Or again if the applicant for a pension under the Police Regulations, contained in the Notification of 1874, I think the local Govt might perfectly well refuse him on the simple ground that he is no longer a "member of the force".

But claiming as the man does under the special agreement under which he enlisted which contained a special clause re pension, it simply becomes a legal question what his rights are - I quite agree with W. De Robeck that having taken his 3 months leave, both just before the expiration of his 5 years service, then going into higher pay in another Department where the pension rules are quite different, he has morally forfeited all claim to the pension under the Police rules, unless there was a specific agreement reserving his right.

But I cannot help thinking that a law court might interpret the document differently. You will notice that there is nothing in the 3rd Clause to necessitate his 10 years service passed in the Police Department, & there is nothing in the 5th clause to the effect that a man who is given 3 month's pay thereby forfeits his claims under the 3rd clause; & the legal view may probably be that unless there was a specific agreement made in 1877, something amounting to that, he retained all his other rights under his original agreement.

The communication made then in 1877/79 by M-Price contains nothing whatever about pension. The probability is he tacitly intimated his concurrence in the stipulations of the transfer then proposed, the question is, if nothing further passed, whether he has lost his legal right. On the other hand, if the lawyer says he has still a right, I would not give him one penny.

MINUTE PAPER.