<persName ref="prs:grenville_r"><surname>Grenville</surname>, <forename>Richard</forename></persName> to <persName ref="prs:seymour_f"><surname>Seymour</surname>, <forename>Frederick</forename></persName> 3 June 1867, NAC RG7:G8C/14, 235. Buckingham & Chandos addressee Seymour

Published by Jim Hendrickson and the University of Victoria.

Grenville, Richard to Seymour, Frederick 3 June 1867, NAC RG7:G8C/14, 235.The Colonial Despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871, Edition 2.6, ed. James Hendrickson and the Colonial Despatches project. Victoria, B.C.: University of Victoria. https://bcgenesis.uvic.ca/B677129.html. NAC RG7:G8C/14 NAC RG7 G8C/14 235 29 B.C. rg7_g8c_14_00137r.jpg 9--> 3 June 1867 Transcribed from microfilm archives, marked up in Waterloo Script, then transformed into TEI P5 XML.

The project glossary items have xml:id attributes beginning with trm_, and we use a trm: prefix to refer to them when linking from term elements.

We link to orgs in orgs/organizations.xml using the org: prefix.

We link to places in places.xml using the plc: prefix.

We link to people in bios/*.xml using the prs: prefix.

We link to vessels in vessels/*.xml using the vsl: prefix.

We link to other documents in the collection using the cdc: prefix.

The cdt (ColDesp Document Type) prefix used on catRef/target points to a central taxonomy in the includes file.

We link to other documents in the collection using the cdc: prefix.

Despatch from London.

Buckingham discusses his views on whether Needham is entitled to certain fees of the Summary Court and 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.

Grenville, Richard Seymour, Frederick Added abstract. Inserted revisionDesc with @status="unproofed". Double image pb tags Created this document. Text is correct but it was labelled as despatch no 28. Corrected the metadata.
No. 28 NAC, RG7, G8C/14, p. 235 (CO 398/5, p. 10) 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.

It appears to me that in a strictly legal point of view Mr. Needham is rightin in his contention.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have the honor to be Sir, Your most obedient humble servant Buckingham & Chandos