No. 71
14th April 1869
My Lord,
I have the honor to forward an Authenticated and two plain Copies of an Ordinance of the late Session of the LegislatureofManuscript image of this Colony entitled; No. 25. An Ordinance to amend "The County Courts Ordinance 1867."
2. I think this a useful measure. The decision conveyed in the Secretary of State's despatch No. 29 of 3rd June 1869,
Manuscript image
Query 1867.
and the mode in which it has been acted on by Chief Justice Needham left it open to Mr Cameron, late Chief Justice,toManuscript image to claim the Fees of the County Courts ever since 1860. This ordinance settles that question.
3. It was proposed in the Legislative Council that the Chief Justices should be compelled to act as County Court Judges. I sent the Bill back for Amendment as my great respect for the opinion of those who maintain thattheManuscript image the Judges ought to be perfectly independent, precluded my conferring on them by Law duties not entailed on them by their Instruments of Appointment. My recommendation was adopted.
4. The Report of the Attorney General is enclosed.
I have the honor to be
My Lord,
Your Lordship's most obedient,
humble Servant.
Frederick Seymour
Minutes by CO staff
Manuscript image
CC 29/5
Manuscript image
Sir F. Rogers
County Court Ordce amended.
The first section gives to the C. Court the power given by the Imperial Act to the English County Courts.
The 2d section bars all claims of officers of the Court to fees "heretofore" received in respect of proceedings in the Summary or Inferior Court.
You will see that in 4401 we came to the conclusion that Mr Needham was legally though not equitably entitled to a part of these fees but that if he persisted in the claim, it must be satisfied & it was suggested that an Act should be passed cancelling "prospectively" the right of the CJ to receive fees of Court.
But as I read this 2d section, legislation has been retrospective not merely prospective with respect to fees of the Summary Court, and Mr Needham could be called upon to refund what we decided him to have received legally though not equitably. The reason for retrospective legislation is assigned by the Governor. It is not stated whether Mr Needham has been called upon to refund, or whether he has refunded, and before the Ordinance is sanctioned I should call for a report upon the state of things & request to be informed whether it is intended to callManuscript image upon Mr Needham to refund, & whether the attention of that Judge has, as was desired by the Duke of Buckingham, been called to the fact that his predecessor from the time of the passing of the rules of 1860, ceased to charge these fees.
HTH 31.5.69
Manuscript image
I wd say that assuming that there is no intention to call upon any officer to refund any money wh he has already received Ld G. has submitted this O. to HM and has to convey HMs approval & confirmation.
FR 1/6
WM 2/6
G 4/6
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Three printed copies of ordinance not on microfilm.
Manuscript image
H.P.P. Crease, Attorney General, to Seymour, 10 April 1869, reporting on the ordinance as per despatch.
Other documents included in the file
Manuscript image
Draft reply, Granville to Officer Administering the Government, No. 60, 19 June 1869.
Seymour, Frederick to Leveson-Gower, Granville George 14 April 1869, CO 60:35, no. 6115, 520. The Colonial Despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871, Edition 2.2, ed. James Hendrickson and the Colonial Despatches project. Victoria, B.C.: University of Victoria. https://bcgenesis.uvic.ca/B69071.html.

Last modified: 2020-12-02 13:40:34 -0800 (Wed, 02 Dec 2020) (SVN revision: 5008)