THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE. 651

whether execution might not be issued; thus the
result of a successful appeal may be frustrated if the
respondent leaves the country prior to service of the
inhibition. In maritime cases, where seafaring men
are not unfrequently one of the litigants, such an
occurrence may take place.
The probability of its occurrence has suggested to
me the expediency of submitting these rules also for
the consideration of the Lord President.
Power conferred on the Vice-Admiralty Judge to
allow an appeal and to stay execution, as in cases at
law, would meet the supposed difficulty.
I have, &c.,
WILLIAM F. STAWELL.

The Right Hon.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies.

The Registrar of the Privy Council to the Assistant
Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Council Office,
Whitehall, 4th July, 1874.

SIR,-I am directed by His Grace the Lord Pre-
sident of the Council to acknowledge the receipt of
your letter of the 30th June last, enclosing, by
direction of the Earl of Carnarvon, a copy of a letter
from Sir William Stawell, suggesting certain altera-
tions in the Rules of Practice now existing with
reference to Appeals to Her Majesty in Council from
the Supreme Court of Victoria.

With reference to the first suggestion made by Sir
William Stawell, I am to observe that the Lords of
the Council have always considered that the regula-
tion of the details of practice before the admission of
appeals and the despatch of the transcript are within
the authority and jurisdiction of the Courts respect-
ively from which these appeals are brought, and
their Lordships have refused to recommend any
Order to Her Majesty which would interfere with
this power of the Colonial and Indian Courts, and
possibly might be inapplicable to some of them.

I add to this letter a copy of a letter addressed by
me in 1865 to the India Office, which embodies the
principles laid down by the Judicial Committee on
the subject.

It was in consequence of this intimation to the
High Court of Judicature of Bengal that the rules
were promulgated by that Court in its appellate
jurisdiction, relating to the admission of Appeals to
Her Majesty in Council, and to the transmission of
such Appeals to England, which bear date the 30th
July, 1870, and are printed in the seventh volume
of Moore's Privy Council Appeals (New Series).

The 4th and 5th of these rules appear to provide
against the inconvenience and delay pointed out by
Sir William Stawell, and their Lordships conceive
that it is within the competence of the Supreme
Courts of New South Wales and Victoria, or any
other Colonial Courts from which an appeal lies to
the Queen, to adopt similar provisions and make them
rules of Court.

With reference to the second suggestion of Sir
William Stawell, their Lordships are of opinion that
it is not expedient, at the present time, to alter the
rules for the regulation of the Vice-Admiralty Court
in the Colony of Victoria. Any modification made
there must be extended to all the Vice-Admiralty
Courts of the Empire, and therefore requires mature
consideration. But their Lordships are of opinion
that the inconvenience pointed out by Sir William
Stawell is one against which it would be well to
provide, and they will take the earliest opportunity
of considering by what means it can best be obviated.

I have, &c.,
HENRY REEVE,
Reg. P. C.

Sir Henry T. Holland, Bart.,
Colonial Office.

Letter from the Registrar of the Privy Council to the
Under Secretary of State for India.

17th March, 1866.

SIR,-With reference to the letter addressed by Sir
Charles Wood on the 4th May, 1865, to the Lord
President of the Council, transmitting the draft rules
for regulating Appeals from the High Courts in India
to Her Majesty in Council, and requesting that the
same might be submitted for the approval of Her
Majesty in Council, I am now directed by the Lord
President to acquaint you, for the information of
Earl de Grey, that these rules have been submitted
to the Lords of the Judicial Committee for their
consideration-a course which appeared to his Lord-
ship to be the more necessary as the preamble of the
draft declares that they are recommended to Her
Majesty by the members of that judicial body.

2. The Lord President regrets that some delay has
   inevitably arisen from the full and careful considera-
   tion which their Lordships have given to the subject;
   but the result of the deliberations of their Lordships
   is that they are of opinion that it is not expedient
   that these rules should be submitted to Her Majesty
   for her gracious approval, for the following among
   other reasons:---

3. In the year 1853, an Order in Council was
   passed by Her Majesty establishing certain general
   regulations for the conduct of all appeals from Her
   Majesty's colonies and possessions abroad, and from
   the territories of the East India Company. The
   provisions of that Order being still in force, they
   must be held to apply to the High Courts of Judi-
   cature which have superseded the Courts of Justice
   existing in India in 1853, and the experience of
   thirteen years has satisfied their Lordships that the
   effect of these regulations has been to improve and
   facilitate the administration of Her Majesty's ap-
   pellate jurisdiction throughout the empire. Their
   Lordships therefore think it undesirable, without
   very strong and peculiar grounds, to establish by Order
   in Council exceptional rules for appeals from the
   Indian Courts of Justice; and if any improvement
   in the existing practice of the Appellate Court be
   required, they are of opinion that it should be
   applied to the entire jurisdiction of Her Majesty
   in Council, in order to maintain certainty and
   uniformity in the practice of the Court.

4. But, in fact, their Lordships observe that many
   of the rules proposed to be established in this draft
   Schedule are already in force, either under the Let-
   ters Patent constituting the High Courts, or under
   the Order in Council of the 10th April, 1838 (which
   still regulates the appealable amount and the time
   for appealing in Indian cases), or under the General
   Order in Council of the 13th June, 1853. This
   remark applies to the rules numbered respectively
   I., IV., XII., XIII., XXII., XXIII., XXIV., XXVII.;
   and as these rules are already established by autho-
   rity and practice, it appears to their Lordships to be
   unnecessary to re-enact them.

5. The draft Schedule also contains certain rules
   which would modify the practice of the Court. Thus
   Rule IX. proposes to revert to the old practice of
   sending over the transcripts in duplicate, instead of the
   one certified copy established by Rule II. of 1853-a
   change their Lordships think objectionable.

6. With reference to Rules XX. and XXI., relating
   to compromises, abatements, and revivors, their Lord-
   ships think the existing practice should be maintained,
   as confusion might arise if the Courts below were
   authorized to allow steps of this nature to be taken
   in India while the proceedings in the appeal might be
   actually going on in England; and, moreover, the
   subject is dealt with by the Imperial Statute 3 and 4
   Wm. IV. cap. 41, section 23.