Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Despatch from London
Grenville, Richard to Seymour, Frederick 3 June 1867, NAC RG7:G8C/14, 235.
Abstract
Despatch from London.
Buckingham discusses his views on whether Needham is entitled to
certain fees of the Summary Courtand advocates for the passing of an
Act … cancelling prospectively the right of the Chief Justice to receive any fees of Court, which [with] the exception of the Admiralty Fees.
No. 28
3 June 1867
Sir,
I have had under my consideration your despatch No. 47 of the 18th
March with its enclosures respecting the detention by Mr. Needham of
certain fees of the Summary Court.
I agree with the Acting Attorney General in thinking that the 13th
Section of No. 3 of 1866 was not intended to revive or reenact, and has
not the effect of reviving or reenacting, rules of April 1857 which
entitled the Chief Justice to certain Summary court Fees has been
repealed, and it appears to me that it was not affected by the rules of
1860, and is therefore stillin
in force.
in force.
It may have been intended to take away all fees from the Chief
Justice, and if I am correctly informed that the Chief Justice in fact
ceased to receive these fees after the passing of the rules in 1860, it
would become almost certain that such was the intention, but I am unable
to agree with the acting Attorney General in thinking that the intention
has been legally carried out.
I think therefore thatMr
Mr Needham is legally right in his claim to
receive these fees, and if he considers himself justified in insisting
on this claim, it must be satisfied. But it appears to me perfectly
clear that in an equitable point of view he is not entitled to receive
these fees. Even if the Chief Justice had received these fees in 1864
at the time when the Act passed by which the Salary of the Chief Justice
was fixed at £1,200, I should be inclined to think that unless specialmention
mention was made of them (as appears to have been the case with certain
Admiralty fees) it was intended that the Salary should cover everything
and not that it should be received in addition to fees of Court. But,
as I understand, the Chief Justice at that time did not receive these
fees and had not received them since 1860.
Mr Needham is legally right in his claim to
receive these fees, and if he considers himself justified in insisting
on this claim, it must be satisfied. But it appears to me perfectly
clear that in an equitable point of view he is not entitled to receive
these fees. Even if the Chief Justice had received these fees in 1864
at the time when the Act passed by which the Salary of the Chief Justice
was fixed at £1,200, I should be inclined to think that unless specialmention
mention was made of them (as appears to have been the case with certain
Admiralty fees) it was intended that the Salary should cover everything
and not that it should be received in addition to fees of Court. But,
as I understand, the Chief Justice at that time did not receive these
fees and had not received them since 1860.
Under these circumstances I am of opinion that an Act should at
once be passed cancelling prospectively the right of the Chief Justiceto
to receive any fees of Court, which the exception of the Admiralty Fees,
about which I am unable to offer any opinion, as I have no information
before me respecting them.
to receive any fees of Court, which the exception of the Admiralty Fees,
about which I am unable to offer any opinion, as I have no information
before me respecting them.
It does not appear whether the fact has been brought to Mr.
Needham's notice that his predecessor from the time of the passing of
those rules ceased to claim these fees, but if there is any doubt
whether he is aware of it, it should certainly be made knownto
to him.
to him.